AJR ARRS Membership
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Canon, C. L.
Right arrow Articles by Koehler, R. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Canon, C. L.
Right arrow Articles by Koehler, R. E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
AJR 2003; 181:1607-1610
© American Roentgen Ray Society

Double Reading of Barium Enemas: Is It Necessary?

Cheri L. Canon1, J. Kevin Smith1, Desiree E. Morgan1, Brian C. Jones1, Sean C. Fell1, Philip J. Kenney1, Dino Ferrante2, Mark E. Lockhart1, Andrew O. Westfall3 and Robert E. Koehler1

1 Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 619 S 19th St. Birmingham, AL 35249.
2 Division of Gastroenterology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35249.
3 Department of Biostatistics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35249.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to determine the effectiveness, clinical impact, and feasibility of double reading barium enemas.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. Independent double readings of 1,003 consecutive barium enemas (822 double- and 181 single-contrast examinations) were prospectively performed. From this pool of 1,003 examinations, 994 were included in our study. Examinations showing at least one polyp or carcinoma 5 mm or larger were considered to have positive results. For combined readings, results were considered positive if either of the two interpreters reported finding a polyp or carcinoma. A McNemar test was used to compare the first reader's results with the combined results of the first and second readers. Results were retrospectively correlated with endoscopic or surgical results in 360 patients, and agreement between first and combined readings and endoscopic results was determined.

RESULTS. Adding a second reader increased the number of positive results on examinations from 249 to 315 (p < 0.0001) and resulted in potential alteration of clinical treatment in 98 patients (9.9%). Sensitivity of the first and combined readings for detection of all lesions was identical, 76.3% (95% CI, 65.4–87.1%). Specificity decreased from 91.0% (95% CI, 87.9–94.3%) for the first reading to 86.4% (95% CI, 82.2–90.0%) for the combined reading. The overall measurement of agreement decreased from a kappa value of 61.8 (95% CI, 51.2–72.4%) for the first reading to 52.9 (95% CI, 42.2–63.6%) for the combined reading. The second reading required an average of 3.3 min. Sensitivity for the detection of adenocarcinomas was 100%.

CONCLUSION. Although feasible, double reading of barium enemas does not improve sensitivity for detection of polyps and produces a higher false-positive rate.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2003 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.