4.7 Article

CT colonography: A systematic review of standard of reporting for studies of computer-aided detection

期刊

RADIOLOGY
卷 246, 期 2, 页码 426-433

出版社

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2461070121

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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 1 technical details of the CAD algorithm, methodologic derails 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 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 1 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 CND development and evaluation was most poorly reported, with an average score per study of 33% in this domain. Conclusions 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 rninimum data set based on the observations is proposed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据