We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Neuroradiologists Compared with Non-Neuroradiologists in the Detection of New Multiple Sclerosis Plaques.
AJNR. American Journal of Neuroradiology 2017 July
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Multiple sclerosis monitoring is based on the detection of new lesions on brain MR imaging. Outside of study populations, MS imaging studies are reported by radiologists with varying expertise. The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of MS reporting performed by neuroradiologists (someone who had spent at least 1 year in neuroradiology subspecialty training) versus non-neuroradiologists.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with ≥2 MS studies with 3T MR imaging that included a volumetric T2 FLAIR sequence performed between 2009 and 2011 inclusive were recruited into this study. The reports for these studies were analyzed for lesions detected, which were categorized as either progressed or stable. The results from a previous study using a semiautomated assistive software for lesion detection were used as the reference standard.
RESULTS: There were 5 neuroradiologists and 5 non-neuroradiologists who reported all studies. In total, 159 comparison pairs (ie, 318 studies) met the selection criteria. Of these, 96 (60.4%) were reported by a neuroradiologist. Neuroradiologists had higher sensitivity (82% versus 42%), higher negative predictive value (89% versus 64%), and lower false-negative rate (18% versus 58%) compared with non-neuroradiologists. Both groups had a 100% positive predictive value.
CONCLUSIONS: Neuroradiologists detect more new lesions than non-neuroradiologists in reading MR imaging for follow-up of MS. Assistive software that aids in the identification of new lesions has a beneficial effect for both neuroradiologists and non-neuroradiologists, though the effect is more profound in the non-neuroradiologist group.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with ≥2 MS studies with 3T MR imaging that included a volumetric T2 FLAIR sequence performed between 2009 and 2011 inclusive were recruited into this study. The reports for these studies were analyzed for lesions detected, which were categorized as either progressed or stable. The results from a previous study using a semiautomated assistive software for lesion detection were used as the reference standard.
RESULTS: There were 5 neuroradiologists and 5 non-neuroradiologists who reported all studies. In total, 159 comparison pairs (ie, 318 studies) met the selection criteria. Of these, 96 (60.4%) were reported by a neuroradiologist. Neuroradiologists had higher sensitivity (82% versus 42%), higher negative predictive value (89% versus 64%), and lower false-negative rate (18% versus 58%) compared with non-neuroradiologists. Both groups had a 100% positive predictive value.
CONCLUSIONS: Neuroradiologists detect more new lesions than non-neuroradiologists in reading MR imaging for follow-up of MS. Assistive software that aids in the identification of new lesions has a beneficial effect for both neuroradiologists and non-neuroradiologists, though the effect is more profound in the non-neuroradiologist group.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app