Increasing Authenticity of Simulation-Based Assessment in Diagnostic Radiology.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical reasoning in diagnostic imaging professions is a complex skill that requires processing of visual information and image manipulation skills. We developed a digital simulation-based test method to increase authenticity of image interpretation skill assessment. METHODS: A digital application, allowing volumetric image viewing and manipulation, was used for three test administrations of the national Dutch Radiology Progress Test for residents. This study describes the development and implementation process in three phases. To assess authenticity of the digital tests, perceived image quality and correspondence to clinical practice were evaluated and compared with previous paper-based tests (PTs). Quantitative and qualitative evaluation results were used to improve subsequent tests. RESULTS: Authenticity of the first digital test was not rated higher than the PTs. Test characteristics and environmental conditions, such as image manipulation options and ambient lighting, were optimized based on participants' comments. After adjustments in the third digital test, participants favored the image quality and clinical correspondence of the digital image questions over paper-based image questions. CONCLUSIONS: Digital simulations can increase authenticity of diagnostic radiology assessments compared with paper-based testing. However, authenticity does not necessarily increase with higher fidelity. It can be challenging to simulate the image interpretation task of clinical practice in a large-scale assessment setting, because of technological limitations. Optimizing image manipulation options, the level of ambient light, time limits, and question types can help improve authenticity of simulation-based radiology assessments.

CT colonography at different radiation dose levels: feasibility of dose reduction.

PURPOSE: To investigate the sensitivity and specificity of polyp detection and the image quality of computed tomographic (CT) colonography at different radiation dose levels and to study effective doses reported in literature on CT colonography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT colonography and colonoscopy were performed with 100 mAs in 50 consecutive patients at high risk for colorectal cancer; 50- and 30-mAs CT colonographic examinations were simulated with controlled addition of noise to raw transmission measurements. One radiologist randomly evaluated all original and simulated images for the presence of polyps and scored image quality. Differences in image quality were assessed with the Wilcoxon rank test. Scan protocols from the literature and recent (unpublished) updates were collected. RESULTS: In nine of 10 patients with polyps 5 mm in diameter or larger (sensitivity, 90%) and in seven of 17 patients with polyps smaller than 5 mm, polyps were correctly identified with CT colonography at all dose levels. Specificity for patients without polyps 5 mm or larger was 53%-60% at all dose levels and for patients without any polyps was 26% (at 100 and 50 mAs) and 48% (at 30 mAs). Image quality decreased significantly as the dose level decreased. The median effective doses (supine and prone positions) calculated from protocols reported in the literature and updates were 7.8 and 8.8 mSv, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although image quality decreases significantly at 30 mAs (3.6 mSv), polyp detection remains unimpaired. The median dose for CT colonography at institutions that perform CT colonographic research is currently 8.8 mSv.