| Id | 2123 | |
| Author | Chen Y.; James J.J.; Michalopoulou E.; Darker I.T.; Jenkins J. | |
| Title | Performance of Radiologists and Radiographers in Double Reading Mammograms: The UK National Health Service Breast Screening Program | |
| Reference | Chen Y.; James J.J.; Michalopoulou E.; Darker I.T.; Jenkins J. Performance of Radiologists and Radiographers in Double Reading Mammograms: The UK National Health Service Breast Screening Program,Radiology 306 1 |
|
| Link to article | https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85144590184&doi=10.1148%2fradiol.212951&partnerID=40&md5=8db60370ed5cc8f485667002f6ca1e8c |
|
| Abstract | Background Double reading can be used in screening mammography, but it is labor intensive. There is limited evidence on whether trained radiographers (ie, technologists) may be used to provide double reading. Purpose To compare the performance of radiologists and radiographers double reading screening mammograms, considering reader experience level. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, performance and experience data were obtained for radiologists and radiographer readers of all screening mammograms in England from April 2015 to March 2016. Cancer detection rate (CDR), recall rate (RR), and positive predictive value (PPV) of recall based on biopsy-proven findings were calculated for first readers. Performance metrics were analyzed according to reader professional group and years of reading experience using the analysis of variance test. P values less than .05 were considered to indicate statistically significant difference. Results During the study period, 401 readers (224 radiologists and 177 radiographers) double read 1 404 395 screening digital mammograms. There was no difference in CDR between radiologist and radiographer readers (mean, 7.84 vs 7.53 per 1000 examinations, respectively; P = .08) and no difference for readers with more than 10 years of experience compared with 5 years or fewer years of experience, regardless of professional group (mean, 7.75 vs 7.71 per 1000 examinations respectively, P = .87). No difference in the mean RR was observed between radiologists and radiographer readers (5.0% vs 5.2%, respectively, P = .63). A lower RR was seen for readers with more than 10 years of experience compared with 5 years or fewer, regardless of professional group (mean, 4.8% vs 5.8%, respectively; P = .001). No variation in PPV was observed between them (P = .42), with PPV values of 17.1% for radiologists versus 16.1% for radiographers. A higher PPV was seen for readers with more than 10 years of experience compared with 5 years or less, regardless of professional group (mean, 17.5% and 14.9%, respectively; P = .02). Conclusion No difference in performance was observed between radiographers and radiologists reading screening mammograms in a program that used double reading. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Hooley and Durand in this issue. |
|
Results:
Smaller Distance better similarity
| Id | View | Author | Title | Distance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2307 |  |
Urquhart C.; Brettle A. | Validation of a generic impact survey for use by health library services indicates the reliability of the questionnaire | 114.404 |
| 2597 | |
Drewitt L.; Martin K.; Atkinson C.; Marczak M. | Providing music therapy for people with dementia in an acute mental health setting | 120.067 |
| 2386 | |
Fineschi D.; Acciai S.; Napolitani M.; Scarafuggi G.; Messina G.; Guarducci G.; Nante N. | Game of Mirrors: Health Profiles in Patient and Physician Perceptions | 125.785 |
| 2402 | |
Shickh S.; Oldfield L.E.; Clausen M.; Mighton C.; Sebastian A.; Calvo A.; Baxter N.N.; Dawson L.; Penney L.S.; Foulkes W.; Basik M.; Sun S.; Schrader K.A.; Regier D.A.; Karsan A.; Pollett A.; Pugh T.J.; Kim R.H.; Bombard Y. | “Game Changer”: Health Professionals’ Views on the Clinical Utility of Circulating Tumor DNA Testing in Hereditary Cancer Syndrome Management | 126.073 |
| 2622 | |
Hammond J.; Davies N.; Morrow E.; Ross F.; Vandrevala T.; Harris R. | “Raising the curtain on the equality theatre”: a study of recruitment to first healthcare job post-qualification in the UK National Health Service | 127.358 |
| 2382 | |
Darban F.; Mir M.; Sabzevari S. | Training by multimedia messaging service method, a solution to improve knowledge, attitude, and performance of health workers: A quasi- experimental study | 127.472 |
| 2621 | |
Arnold-Forster A. | Clio in the Operating Theatre: Historical Research, Emotional Health, and Surgical Training in Contemporary Britain | 128.391 |
| 2279 | |
Edwards C.; Gilroy D.; Mallender J. | Evidence Searches Undertaken by Knowledge and Library Specialists Save the Time of Health Care Professionals and Produce an Economic Benefit to the NHS in England | 128.572 |
| 2129 | |
Leroy C.; Kammerer Y. | Reading multiple documents on a health-related issue: the roles of a text-highlighting tool and re-reading behaviour in integrated understanding | 128.7 |
| 2371 | |
Antonio M.G.; Williamson A.; Kameswaran V.; Beals A.; Ankrah E.; Goulet S.; Wang Y.; Macias G.; James-Gist J.; Brown L.K.; Davis S.; Pillai S.; Buis L.; Dillahunt T.; Veinot T.C. | Targeting Patients’ Cognitive Load for Telehealth Video Visits through Student-Delivered Helping Sessions at a United States Federally Qualified Health Center: Equity-Focused, Mixed Methods Pilot Intervention Study | 129.741 |
MESOC has received funding
from Horizon 2020 - the EU Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) -
under Grant Agreement n°870935.
We take your privacy seriously and WE DO NOT process any personal data or any information that reveals personal identity or information that can be linked to such information to identify directly or indirectly.
2021 © CD