The assessment of new technology such as CT colonography (CTC) is usually based on the evidence presented in the peer reviewed literature (Bruzzi et al. 2001; Sosna et al. 2003; DacHMan 2002). A summary or combined metric of performance is often based on a meta-analysis of multiple reports. A typical meta-analysis, as often seen for clinical drug trials, requires a reasonable uniformity in methodology. The difficulties in conducting a statistically valid meta-analysis in virtual colonoscopy have been summarized previously (Dachman 2002). Sosna et al. performed a meta-analysis of CTC data (SosNa et al. 2003) and found only 14 papers in the peer reviewed literature meeting their criteria for inclusion. However these data assume a fundamental homogeneity of technique of exam performance, interpretation and reporting. Recent articles have
The University of Chicago, Department of Radiology, MC 2026, 5841 S. Maryland Ave., Chicago, IL 60645, USA M. E. Zalis, MD
Massachusetts General Hospital, Dept of Radiology (White 270), 55 Fruit St., Boston, MA 02114, USA
emphasized the need for uniformity in presenting and reporting CTC data (Dachman and Zalis 2004; Zalis et al. 2005). In this chapter we review the factors that should be considered when the researcher reports results. Also, the informed reader should seek this information when reading reports of CTC trials. Even in a non-research setting, an internal audit of the success of a new CTC screening program is often desired. This chapter will guide radiologists and administrators as to the data that should be recorded and reported.
Was this article helpful?
Stop The Pain. Manage Your Diverticular Disease And Live A Pain Free Life. No Pain, No Fear, Full Control Normal Life Again. Diverticular Disease can stop you from doing all the things you love. Seeing friends, playing with the kids... even trying to watch your favorite television shows.