Background Appropriate indications for radiologic evaluation of central venous ports are not fully understood. We aimed to quantitatively assess the utility of clinical history and imaging in the evaluation of malfunctioning central venous ports. Methods Clinical history, plain radiographs, and line injections intended to evaluate central venous port malfunction in 153 consecutive cases over a nearly 4-year period were retrospectively reviewed by 2 radiologists. Radiographs and line injections were separately categorized as normal or abnormal, and a consensus was reached on the final imaging diagnosis. The likelihood of a port-related abnormality necessitating immediate intervention was determined for all represented combinations of clinical history, radiographic findings, and line injection results. Results A radiologic diagnosis was made in 96.1% of cases; 19.7% of these diagnoses were classified as critical, requiring prompt intervention. Very low risk histories had a 0.0% incidence of critical port abnormalities in our cohort, regardless of imaging findings. Low risk histories had a 10.5% incidence of a critical abnormality and were best evaluated either by line injection, either directly or following an abnormal chest radiograph. Intermediate and high risk histories were associated with a 30.5% and 61.1% incidence of critical port abnormalities, respectively, and were best evaluated by line injection without preceding chest radiograph. Conclusions There are several scenarios in which imaging does not meaningfully affect management of malfunctioning central venous ports. Recognizing these inefficiencies may allow for more appropriate and cost-effective use of radiographs and line injections to evaluate the cause of port malfunction. © 2014, ASSOCIATION FOR VASCULAR ACCESS. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Background

Games with educational intent offer a possible advantage of being more interactive and increasing learner satisfaction.

Objective

We conducted a two-armed experiment to evaluate student satisfaction and content mastery for an introductory pediatric radiology topic, taught by either an interactive digital game or with a traditional didactic lecture.

Materials and methods

Medical students participating in a fourth-year radiology elective were invited to participate. Student cohorts were alternatively given a faculty-supervised 1h session playing a simple interactive digital Tic-tac-toe quiz module on pediatric gastrointestinal radiology or a 1h didactic introductory lecture on the same topic. Survey questions assessed the learners' perceived ability to recall the material as well as their satisfaction with the educational experience. Results of an end-of-rotation exam were reviewed to evaluate a quantitative measure of learning between groups. Survey responses were analyzed with a chi-squared test. Exam results for both groups were analyzed with a paired Student's t-test.

Results

Students in the lecture group had higher test scores compared to students in the game group (4.0/5 versus 3.6/5, P = 0.045). Students in the lecture group reported greater understanding and recall of the material than students in the game group (P < 0.001 and P = 0.004, respectively). Students in the lecture group perceived the lecture to be more enjoyable and a better use of their time compared to those in the game group (P = 0.04 and P < 0.001, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference between the lecture and game group in ability to maintain interest (P = 0.187). In comparison to pre-survey results, there was a statistically significant decrease in interest for further digital interactive materials reported by students in the game group (P = 0.146).

Conclusion

Our experience supported the use of a traditional lecture over a digital game module. While these results might be affected by the specific lecture and digital content in any given comparison, a digital module is not always the superior option.

Purpose

Computed tomography (CT) use in emergency departments represents a significant contribution to pediatric patients' exposure to ionizing radiation. Here, we evaluate whether ultralow-dose chest CT can be diagnostically adequate for other diagnoses and whether model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) can improve diagnostic adequacy compared to adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) at ultralow doses.

Methods

Twenty children underwent chest CTs: 10 standard-dose reconstructed with ASIR and 10 ultralow-dose reconstructed with ASIR and MBIR. Four radiologists assessed images for their adequacy to exclude five hypothetical diagnoses: foreign body, fracture, lung metastasis, pulmonary infection, and interstitial lung disease. Additionally, pairwise comparison for subjective image quality was used to compare ultralow-dose chest CT with ASIR and MBIR. Radiation dose and objective image noise measures were obtained.

Results

For exclusion of an airway foreign body, the adequacy of ultralow-dose CT was comparable to standard-dose (p = 0.6). For the remaining diagnoses, ultralow-dose CT was inferior to standard-dose (p = 0.03-<0.001). MBIR partially recovered the adequacy of ultralow-dose CT to exclude pulmonary infection (p = 0.017), but was suboptimal for the other diagnoses. Image noise was significantly lower with MBIR compared to ASIR in ultralow-dose CT (p < 0.001), although subjective preference showed only a slight advantage of MBIR (58 versus 42%).

Conclusions

Ultralow-dose chest CT may be adequate for airway assessment, but suboptimal for the evaluation parenchymal lung disease. Although MBIR improves objective and subjective image quality, it does not completely restore the diagnostic adequacy of ultralow-dose CT when compared to standard-dose CT.

Objective

Biomedical imaging research relies heavily on the subjective and semi-quantitative reader analysis of images. Current methods are limited by interreader variability and fixed upper and lower limits. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of two assessment methods, pairwise comparison and Likert scale, for improved analysis of biomedical images.

Materials and methods

A set of 10 images with varying degrees of image sharpness was created by digitally blurring a normal clinical chest radiograph. Readers assessed the degree of image sharpness using two different methods: pairwise comparison and a 10-point Likert scale. Reader agreement with actual chest radiograph sharpness was calculated for each method by use of the Lin concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).

Results

Reader accuracy was highest for pairwise comparison (CCC, 1.0) and ranked Likert (CCC, 0.99) scores and lowest for nonranked Likert scores (CCC, 0.83). Accuracy improved slightly when readers repeated their assessments (CCC, 0.87) or had reference images available (CCC, 0.91).

Conclusion

Pairwise comparison and ranked Likert scores yield more accurate reader assessments than nonranked Likert scores.