4.5 Article

The impact of reader fatigue on the accuracy of capsule endoscopy interpretation

期刊

DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
卷 53, 期 8, 页码 1028-1033

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2021.04.024

关键词

Capsule endoscopy; Accuracy; Fatigue; Concentration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Experienced readers showed decreased lesion detection after reading just one capsule study, while novice readers' accuracy was unaffected by the number of capsules read. Fatigue did not correlate with reading accuracy.
Background and aims: Capsule endoscopy (CE) interpretation requires the review of many thousands of images, with lesions often limited to just a few frames. In this study we aim to determine whether lesion detection declines according to the number of capsule videos read. Methods: 32 participants, 16 of which were novices (NR) and 16 experienced (ER) capsule readers took part in this prospective evaluation study. Participants read six capsule cases with a variety of lesions, in a randomly assigned order during a single sitting. Psychomotor Vigilance Tests and Fatigue Scores were recorded prior to commencing and then after every two capsules read. Changes in lesion detection and measures of fatigue were assessed across the duration of the study. Results: Mean agreement with the predefined lesions was 48.3% (SD:16.1), and 21.3% (SD:15.1) for the experienced and novice readers respectively. Lesion detection declined amongst experienced reader after the first study ( p = 0.01), but remained stable after subsequent capsules read, while NR accuracy was unaffected by capsule numbers read. Objective measures of fatigue did not correlate with reading accuracy. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that reader accuracy declines after reading just one capsule study. Subjective and objective measures of fatigue were not sufficient to predict the onset of the effects of fatigue. Crown Copyright (c) 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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