CT colonography: a systematic review of standard of reporting for studies of computer-aided detection.
PURPOSE: To determine objectively the current standard of reporting for studies of computer-aided detection (CAD) for computed tomographic (CT) colonography by systematically reviewing published articles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE was searched to identify study articles meeting the inclusion c...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Journal article |
| Idioma: | English |
| Publicado: |
2008
|
| _version_ | 1826295470971944960 |
|---|---|
| author | Robinson, C Halligan, S Taylor, SA Mallett, S Altman, D |
| author_facet | Robinson, C Halligan, S Taylor, SA Mallett, S Altman, D |
| author_sort | Robinson, C |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | PURPOSE: To determine objectively the current standard of reporting for studies of computer-aided detection (CAD) for computed tomographic (CT) colonography by systematically reviewing published articles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE was searched to identify study articles meeting the inclusion criteria for describing CAD for CT colonography in human subjects. Data were extracted from eligible articles, grouped into five domains: technical description of CAD algorithm, description of subjects, acquisition of data, evaluation strategy used, and presentation of results. Primary studies were scored for each domain and overall findings plotted as star plots. RESULTS: Although 21 (91%) of the 23 studies included presented technical details of the CAD algorithm, methodologic details used for model development and validity were generally poor. Investigators in six (26%) studies described the evaluation data set sufficiently for replication; investigators in eight (35%) studies described age and sex demographics for subjects in whom CAD was tested. Investigators in 11 (48%) studies presented polyps per subject. Investigators in 12 (52%) studies described the reference standard against which CAD was judged; 11 (48%) studies explicitly distinguished between development and evaluation data. In nine (39%) studies, the evaluation strategy used to test CAD could not be deduced at all. Description of subjects included for CAD development and evaluation was most poorly reported, with an average score per study of 33% in this domain. CONCLUSION: The reporting quality for studies of CAD for CT colonography is highly variable; key methodologic details needed for informed assessment of the generalizability of results are frequently omitted, for which a minimum data set based on the observations is proposed. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T04:01:32Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:c4be3dcf-513b-4d71-9c89-052fc9c417e4 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T04:01:32Z |
| publishDate | 2008 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:c4be3dcf-513b-4d71-9c89-052fc9c417e42022-03-27T06:25:48ZCT colonography: a systematic review of standard of reporting for studies of computer-aided detection.Journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:c4be3dcf-513b-4d71-9c89-052fc9c417e4EnglishSymplectic Elements at Oxford2008Robinson, CHalligan, STaylor, SAMallett, SAltman, D PURPOSE: To determine objectively the current standard of reporting for studies of computer-aided detection (CAD) for computed tomographic (CT) colonography by systematically reviewing published articles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE was searched to identify study articles meeting the inclusion criteria for describing CAD for CT colonography in human subjects. Data were extracted from eligible articles, grouped into five domains: technical description of CAD algorithm, description of subjects, acquisition of data, evaluation strategy used, and presentation of results. Primary studies were scored for each domain and overall findings plotted as star plots. RESULTS: Although 21 (91%) of the 23 studies included presented technical details of the CAD algorithm, methodologic details used for model development and validity were generally poor. Investigators in six (26%) studies described the evaluation data set sufficiently for replication; investigators in eight (35%) studies described age and sex demographics for subjects in whom CAD was tested. Investigators in 11 (48%) studies presented polyps per subject. Investigators in 12 (52%) studies described the reference standard against which CAD was judged; 11 (48%) studies explicitly distinguished between development and evaluation data. In nine (39%) studies, the evaluation strategy used to test CAD could not be deduced at all. Description of subjects included for CAD development and evaluation was most poorly reported, with an average score per study of 33% in this domain. CONCLUSION: The reporting quality for studies of CAD for CT colonography is highly variable; key methodologic details needed for informed assessment of the generalizability of results are frequently omitted, for which a minimum data set based on the observations is proposed. |
| spellingShingle | Robinson, C Halligan, S Taylor, SA Mallett, S Altman, D CT colonography: a systematic review of standard of reporting for studies of computer-aided detection. |
| title | CT colonography: a systematic review of standard of reporting for studies of computer-aided detection. |
| title_full | CT colonography: a systematic review of standard of reporting for studies of computer-aided detection. |
| title_fullStr | CT colonography: a systematic review of standard of reporting for studies of computer-aided detection. |
| title_full_unstemmed | CT colonography: a systematic review of standard of reporting for studies of computer-aided detection. |
| title_short | CT colonography: a systematic review of standard of reporting for studies of computer-aided detection. |
| title_sort | ct colonography a systematic review of standard of reporting for studies of computer aided detection |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT robinsonc ctcolonographyasystematicreviewofstandardofreportingforstudiesofcomputeraideddetection AT halligans ctcolonographyasystematicreviewofstandardofreportingforstudiesofcomputeraideddetection AT taylorsa ctcolonographyasystematicreviewofstandardofreportingforstudiesofcomputeraideddetection AT malletts ctcolonographyasystematicreviewofstandardofreportingforstudiesofcomputeraideddetection AT altmand ctcolonographyasystematicreviewofstandardofreportingforstudiesofcomputeraideddetection |