Evanoff, M. G.
Evanoff, M. G.
Evanoff, M. G.
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- PublicationA questionnaire survey reviewing radiologists and clinical specialist radiographers knowledge of CT exposure parameters(Springer, 2013-10)
; ;Objective: To review knowledge of computed tomography (CT) parameters and their influence on patient dose and image quality amongst a cohort of clinical specialist radiographers (CSRs) and examining radiologists. Methods:A questionnaire survey was devised and distributed to a cohort of 65 examining radiologists attending the American Board of Radiology exam in Kentucky in November 2011. The questionnaire was later distributed by post to a matching cohort of Irish CT CSRs. Each questionnaire contained 40 questions concerning CT parameters and their influence on both patient dose and image quality. Results: A response rate of 22 % (radiologists) and 32 % (CSRs) was achieved. No difference in mean scores was detected between either group (27.8 ± 4 vs 28.1 ± 4, P = 0.87) although large ranges were noted (18–36). Considerable variations in understanding of CT parameters was identified, especially regarding operation of automatic exposure control and the influence of kilovoltage and tube current on patient dose and image quality. Radiologists were unaware of recommended diagnostic reference levels. Both cohorts were concerned regarding CT doses in their departments. Conclusions: CT parameters were well understood by both groups. However, a number of deficiencies were noted which may have a considerable impact on patient doses and limit the potential for optimisation in clinical practice. 283Scopus© Citations 30
- PublicationVariability of Breast Density Classification Between US and UK Radiologists(Elsevier, 2019-03)
; ; ; ; ;Purpose: To assess whether subjective breast density categorization remains the most useful way to categorize mammographic breast density and whether variations exist across geographic regions with differing national legislation. Methods: Breast radiologists from two countries (UK, USA) were voluntarily recruited to review sets of anonymized mammographic images (n = 180) and additional repeated images (n = 70), totaling 250 images, to subjectively rate breast density according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data system (BI-RADS) categorization. Images were reviewed using standardized viewing conditions and Ziltron software. Inter-rater reliability was analyzed using the Kappa test. Results: The US radiologists (n = 25) judged fewer images as being “mostly fatty” than UK radiologists (n = 24), leading a greater number of images classified in the higher BI-RADS categories, particularly in BI-RADS 3. Overall agreement for all data sets was k = 0.654 indicating substantial agreement between the two cohorts. When the data were split into BI-RADS categories, the level of agreement varied from fair to substantial. Conclusion: Variations in how radiologists from the USA and UK classify breast density was established, especially when the data were divided into breast density categories. This variation supports the need for a reliable breast density assessment method to enhance the individualized supplemental screening pathways for dense breasts. The use of two-scale categorization method demonstrated improved agreement. 331Scopus© Citations 10