Premium
APPROACHES TO INSPECTING COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC AND MAGNETIC RESONANCE STUDIES
Author(s) -
Lamb Christopher R.,
Dale Vicki H.M.
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
veterinary radiology and ultrasound
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.541
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1740-8261
pISSN - 1058-8183
DOI - 10.1111/vru.12064
Subject(s) - medicine , magnetic resonance imaging , computed tomography , radiology , medical physics , specialty , computed tomographic , certification , pathology , political science , law
There is a need to better understand how to optimally inspect large image datasets. The aim of the present study was to complement experimental studies of visual perception by using an online questionnaire to collect opinions of practicing veterinary radiologists about the approaches they use when inspecting clinical computed X‐ray tomography (CT) and/or magnetic resonance (MR) studies, and to test associations between radiologist's approaches and their training, experience, or caseload. Questionnaires were received from 90/454 (20%) American College of Veterinary Radiology (ACVR) Diplomates and 58/156 (37%) European College of Veterinary Diagnostic Imaging (ECVDI) Diplomates, providing 139 complete responses for CT studies and 116 for MR. Questionnaire responses differed for the following variables: specialty college, years since Board Certification, CT and MR caseload, and type of practice. ACVR Diplomates more frequently inspected multiple anatomic structures in CT and MR images before moving on to the next image, and ECVDI Diplomates more frequently inspected a specific anatomic structure through a series, then went back and checked another structure. A significant number of radiologists indicated that they initially ignore the history, adopt relatively rigid search patterns with emphasis on viewing images in a predetermined order with minimal deviation, and arrange series of images to facilitate comparisons between images, such as pre‐ and postcontrast images. Radiologists tended to adopt similar approaches for both CT and MR studies. Findings from this study could be used as foci for teaching novices how to approach large imaging studies, and provide guidance for case‐based assessment of trainees.