Eva Galvan

Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut, United States

Are you Eva Galvan?

Claim your profile

Publications (3)5.3 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: To investigate the effect of recognition of a previously encountered radiograph on consistency of response in localising pulmonary nodules. Methods: Thirteen radiologists each interpreted 40 radiographs to locate pulmonary nodules. A few days later they again interpreted 40 radiographs. Half of the images in the second set were new. We asked the radiologists whether each image had been in the first set. We used Fisher's exact test and the Kruskal-Wallis test to evaluate the correlation between recognition of an image and consistency in its interpretation. We evaluated the data using all possible recognition levels - definitely, probably or possibly included versus definitely, probably or possibly not included, collapsing the recognition levels into two, and by eliminating the "possibly included" and "possibly not included" scores. Results: With all but one of six methods of looking at the data, there was no significant correlation between consistency in interpretation and recognition of the image. When the "possibly included" and "possibly not included" scores were eliminated, there was borderline statistical significance (p = 0.04) with slightly greater consistency in interpretation of recognised than non-recognised images. Conclusions: We found no convincing evidence that radiologists' recognition of images in an observer-performance study affects their interpretation on a second encounter. Advances in Knowledge: Conscious recognition of chest radiographs did not result in a greater degree of consistency in the tested interpretation as compared with interpretation of images that were not recognised.
    The British journal of radiology 04/2014; · 2.11 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate the effect of being forewarned that they would be asked to identify repeated images on radiologists' recognition of previously interpreted versus new chest radiographs. Thirteen radiologists viewed 60 posterior-anterior chest radiographs, 31 with and 29 without nodules, in two sets of 40 images each. Eight radiologists were forewarned and five radiologists were not forewarned of the memory task. Twenty images in each of the two sets were unique to each set and 20 images occurred in both sets. The readers indicated the presence or absence of any nodules during both readings, and in the second reading session they also indicated whether they thought each image had also occurred in the first reading. There was no significant difference in recognition memory performance between forewarned and not-forewarned readers. Overall accuracy in distinguishing previously-viewed from new images was 60.7%. Being forewarned of the memory task did not improve recognition memory.
    Academic radiology 12/2013; 20(12):1598-603. · 2.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Digital screening mammograms (DM) take longer to interpret than film-screen screening mammograms (FSM). We evaluated what part of the process takes long in our reading environment. We selected cases from those for which timed readings had been performed as part of a previous study. Readers were timed as they performed various computer manipulations on groups of DM cases and as they moved the alternator and adjusted lighting and manual shutters for FSM cases. Subtracting manipulation time from the original interpretation times yielded estimated times to reach a decision. Manipulation times for DM ranged from a low of 11 s when four-view DM were simply opened and closed in a 4-on-1 hanging protocol before moving on to the next study to 113.8 s when each view of six-view DM were brought up 1-on-1, enlarged to 100% resolution, and panned through. Manipulation times for groups of FSM ranged from 8.3 to 12.1 s. Estimated decision-making times for DM ranged from 128.0 to 202.2 s, while estimated decision-making time for FSM ranged from 60.9 to 146.3 s. Computer manipulation time partially explains the discrepancy in interaction times between DM and FSM. Radiologists also appear to spend more time looking at DM than at FSM before making a decision.
    Journal of Digital Imaging 03/2009; 23(2):170-80. · 1.10 Impact Factor