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!
|
| container_end_page | 659 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | 655 |
| container_title | Acta radiologica (1987) |
| container_volume | 47 |
| creator | Hukkinen, K. Kivisaari, L. Vehmas, T. |
| description | 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1080/02841850600803842 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68817262</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1080_02841850600803842</sage_id><sourcerecordid>68817262</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-b10351eb155ab062f34c15183475e1997da32939e46ed7d24ed432448b5929613</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkM1L5EAQxRtx0fHjD_AiuegtblV_JB3Egwy7OuCuIHoOlaTiRJJ07E4O_vebYQY8CLKn4lG_96p4QpwhXCFY-AnSarQGEpiVslruiQXOIgZtzL5YbPbxDOChOArhDQBlavBAHGKSGUgBFuJm1Q1UjpGro3HN0d-pK9hv1BNTxT5Ero_-UNe5V0_D-iNa9SP7wfNIY-P6E_Gjpjbw6W4ei5ffv56X9_HD491qefsQl1rCGBcIyiAXaAwVkMha6RINWqVTw5hlaUVKZipjnXCVVlJzpZXU2hYmk1mC6lhcbnMH794nDmPeNaHktqWe3RTyxFpMZSJnELdg6V0Inut88E1H_iNHyDed5V86mz3nu_Cp6Lj6dOxKmoGLHUChpLb21JdN-OQsWGVh8-XVlgv0yvmbm3w_l_Lt5eutoelr5ztaM7XjuiT_X-5_8rSQdg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>68817262</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Impact of the Number of Readers on Mammography Interpretation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Taylor & Francis:Master (3349 titles)</source><creator>Hukkinen, K. ; Kivisaari, L. ; Vehmas, T.</creator><creatorcontrib>Hukkinen, K. ; Kivisaari, L. ; Vehmas, T.</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0284-1851</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1600-0455</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/02841850600803842</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16950700</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ACRAE3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: Informa UK Ltd</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Clinical Competence ; Female ; Genital system. Mammary gland ; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics ; Humans ; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) ; Mammary gland diseases ; Mammography - methods ; Mass Screening - standards ; Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Observer Variation ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry ; Retrospective Studies ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Tumors</subject><ispartof>Acta radiologica (1987), 2006-09, Vol.47 (7), p.655-659</ispartof><rights>2006 Informa UK Ltd All rights reserved: reproduction in whole or part not permitted 2006</rights><rights>2006 Taylor & Francis</rights><rights>2006 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-b10351eb155ab062f34c15183475e1997da32939e46ed7d24ed432448b5929613</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02841850600803842$$EPDF$$P50$$Ginformahealthcare$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02841850600803842$$EHTML$$P50$$Ginformahealthcare$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,61221,61402</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=18083801$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16950700$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hukkinen, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kivisaari, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vehmas, T.</creatorcontrib><title>Impact of the Number of Readers on Mammography Interpretation</title><title>Acta radiologica (1987)</title><addtitle>Acta Radiol</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Clinical Competence</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Genital system. Mammary gland</subject><subject>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</subject><subject>Mammary gland diseases</subject><subject>Mammography - methods</subject><subject>Mass Screening - standards</subject><subject>Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><issn>0284-1851</issn><issn>1600-0455</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkM1L5EAQxRtx0fHjD_AiuegtblV_JB3Egwy7OuCuIHoOlaTiRJJ07E4O_vebYQY8CLKn4lG_96p4QpwhXCFY-AnSarQGEpiVslruiQXOIgZtzL5YbPbxDOChOArhDQBlavBAHGKSGUgBFuJm1Q1UjpGro3HN0d-pK9hv1BNTxT5Ero_-UNe5V0_D-iNa9SP7wfNIY-P6E_Gjpjbw6W4ei5ffv56X9_HD491qefsQl1rCGBcIyiAXaAwVkMha6RINWqVTw5hlaUVKZipjnXCVVlJzpZXU2hYmk1mC6lhcbnMH794nDmPeNaHktqWe3RTyxFpMZSJnELdg6V0Inut88E1H_iNHyDed5V86mz3nu_Cp6Lj6dOxKmoGLHUChpLb21JdN-OQsWGVh8-XVlgv0yvmbm3w_l_Lt5eutoelr5ztaM7XjuiT_X-5_8rSQdg</recordid><startdate>20060901</startdate><enddate>20060901</enddate><creator>Hukkinen, K.</creator><creator>Kivisaari, L.</creator><creator>Vehmas, T.</creator><general>Informa UK Ltd</general><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Taylor & Francis</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20060901</creationdate><title>Impact of the Number of Readers on Mammography Interpretation</title><author>Hukkinen, K. ; Kivisaari, L. ; Vehmas, T.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-b10351eb155ab062f34c15183475e1997da32939e46ed7d24ed432448b5929613</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Clinical Competence</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Genital system. Mammary gland</topic><topic>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</topic><topic>Mammary gland diseases</topic><topic>Mammography - methods</topic><topic>Mass Screening - standards</topic><topic>Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hukkinen, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kivisaari, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vehmas, T.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Acta radiologica (1987)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hukkinen, K.</au><au>Kivisaari, L.</au><au>Vehmas, T.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Impact of the Number of Readers on Mammography Interpretation</atitle><jtitle>Acta radiologica (1987)</jtitle><addtitle>Acta Radiol</addtitle><date>2006-09-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>47</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>655</spage><epage>659</epage><pages>655-659</pages><issn>0284-1851</issn><eissn>1600-0455</eissn><coden>ACRAE3</coden><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>Informa UK Ltd</pub><pmid>16950700</pmid><doi>10.1080/02841850600803842</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0284-1851 |
| ispartof | Acta radiologica (1987), 2006-09, Vol.47 (7), p.655-659 |
| issn | 0284-1851 1600-0455 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68817262 |
| source | MEDLINE; Taylor & Francis:Master (3349 titles) |
| subjects | Biological and medical sciences Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Clinical Competence Female Genital system. Mammary gland Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics Humans Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) Mammary gland diseases Mammography - methods Mass Screening - standards Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data Medical sciences Middle Aged Observer Variation Predictive Value of Tests Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry Retrospective Studies Sensitivity and Specificity Tumors |
| title | Impact of the Number of Readers on Mammography Interpretation |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T04%3A48%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Impact%20of%20the%20Number%20of%20Readers%20on%20Mammography%20Interpretation&rft.jtitle=Acta%20radiologica%20(1987)&rft.au=Hukkinen,%20K.&rft.date=2006-09-01&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=655&rft.epage=659&rft.pages=655-659&rft.issn=0284-1851&rft.eissn=1600-0455&rft.coden=ACRAE3&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/02841850600803842&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68817262%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=68817262&rft_id=info:pmid/16950700&rft_sage_id=10.1080_02841850600803842&rfr_iscdi=true |