ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To test the inter-reader agreement in assessing lung disease extent, HRCT signs, and Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) categorization between a chest-devoted radiologist (CR) and two HRCT-naïve radiology residents (RR1 and RR2) after the latter attended a COVID-19-based chest high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) "crash course". METHODS: The course was built by retrospective inclusion of 150 patients who underwent HRCT for COVID-19 pneumonia between November 2020 and January 2021. During a first 10-days-long "training phase", RR1 and RR2 read a pool of 100/150 HRCTs, receiving day-by-day access to CR reports as feedback. In the subsequent 2-days-long "test phase", they were asked to report 50/150 HRCTs with no feedback. Test phase reports of RR1/RR2 were then compared with CR using unweighted or linearly-weighted Cohen's kappa (k) statistic and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: We observed almost perfect agreement in assessing disease extent between RR1-CR (k = 0.83, p < 0.001) and RR2-CR (k = 0.88, p < 0.001). The agreement between RR1-CR and RR2-CR on consolidation, crazy paving pattern, organizing pneumonia (OP) pattern, and pulmonary artery (PA) diameter was substantial (k = 0.65 and k = 0.68), moderate (k = 0.42 and k = 0.51), slight (k = 0.10 and k = 0.20), and good-to-excellent (ICC = 0.87 and ICC = 0.91), respectively. The agreement in providing RSNA categorization was moderate for R1 versus CR (k = 0.56) and substantial for R2 versus CR (k = 0.67). CONCLUSION: HRCT-naïve readers showed an acceptable overall agreement with CR, supporting the hypothesis that a crash course can be a tool to readily make non-subspecialty radiologists available to cooperate in reading high burden of HRCT examinations during a pandemic/epidemic.