Impact of the Number of Readers on Mammography Interpretation
Purpose: To evaluate the impact of the number of readers on sensitivity and specificity, and compare it with conference consensus reading. Material and Methods: Eight readers read mammography films of 200 women (including 35 false-negative and 16 screen-detected cancers). The sensitivities and speci...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Acta radiologica (1987) 2006-09, Vol.47 (7), p.655-659 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Purpose: To evaluate the impact of the number of readers on sensitivity and specificity, and compare it with conference consensus reading.
Material and Methods: Eight readers read mammography films of 200 women (including 35 false-negative and 16 screen-detected cancers). The sensitivities and specificities of the two methods were calculated: either at least a single cancer-positive opinion within the group (summarized independent reading) or the cancer-positive opinion of the reader majority (conference consensus reading) was considered decisive.
Results: The mean sensitivity for summarized independent readings of different groups was 64.7% as compared to the 43.1% mean sensitivity of conference consensus readings. The mean specificities were 92.4% and 97.7%, respectively. The greatest sensitivity of 74.5% was achieved when the readings of the four best-performing readers were combined.
Conclusion: The sensitivity of reading is maximal when any positive opinion within a pair or a group of readers is taken into consideration. Discordant double reading may best be judged as screening positive, and the value of a third opinion should be questioned. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0284-1851 1600-0455 |
DOI: | 10.1080/02841850600803842 |