Methodological issues in mammography double reading studies
Objectives An examination of the methods used in assessing cancer detection rates in double reading studies to obtain a clear interpretation of the disparate results from differing studies. Setting National breast screening programmes. Methods Critical appraisal of methodologies used in the comparis...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of medical screening 1998-01, Vol.5 (4), p.202-206 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 206 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 202 |
| container_title | Journal of medical screening |
| container_volume | 5 |
| creator | Williams, L J Hartswood, M Prescott, R J |
| description | Objectives
An examination of the methods used in assessing cancer detection rates in double reading studies to obtain a clear interpretation of the disparate results from differing studies.
Setting
National breast screening programmes.
Methods
Critical appraisal of methodologies used in the comparison of cancer detection rates with single or double reading.
Results
The reported improvement in cancer detection rate with double reading varies greatly between studies, depending upon whether the study is blinded and the statistic used. A method of calculating the increase in cancer detection rate due to a second reader is proposed. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1136/jms.5.4.202 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69162797</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1136_jms.5.4.202</sage_id><sourcerecordid>69162797</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-30a2f14345f40c336ab6e6416059b5b0cf21bf852c0a4bcf68ecc0ef3bfdb383</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkDtPwzAUhS0EKqUwMSNlQkgowTd-JBZTVfGSili6W7Zjp6mSuNjJ0H9PUCsmpjucT0fnfgjdAs4ACH_adTFjGc1ynJ-hOdCCpawQ5BzNseAiBQrkEl3FuMMYE4ByhmZCEMoZzNHzpx22vvKtrxuj2qSJcbQxafqkU13n66D220NS-VG3NglWVU1fJ3EYq8bGa3ThVBvtzeku0Ob1ZbN6T9dfbx-r5To1BIohJVjlDiihzFFsCOFKc8spcMyEZhobl4N2JcsNVlQbx0trDLaOaFdpUpIFuj_W7oP_nsYNsmuisW2reuvHKLkAnheimMDHI2iCjzFYJ_eh6VQ4SMDy15ScTEkmqZxMTfTdqXbUna3-2JOaKX845lHVVu78GPrpyX-rfgCeIHIE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>69162797</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Methodological issues in mammography double reading studies</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Williams, L J ; Hartswood, M ; Prescott, R J</creator><creatorcontrib>Williams, L J ; Hartswood, M ; Prescott, R J</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives
An examination of the methods used in assessing cancer detection rates in double reading studies to obtain a clear interpretation of the disparate results from differing studies.
Setting
National breast screening programmes.
Methods
Critical appraisal of methodologies used in the comparison of cancer detection rates with single or double reading.
Results
The reported improvement in cancer detection rate with double reading varies greatly between studies, depending upon whether the study is blinded and the statistic used. A method of calculating the increase in cancer detection rate due to a second reader is proposed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0969-1413</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1475-5793</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/jms.5.4.202</identifier><identifier>PMID: 9934651</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Female ; Humans ; Mammography - methods ; Mass Screening - methods ; Models, Statistical ; Observer Variation ; United Kingdom</subject><ispartof>Journal of medical screening, 1998-01, Vol.5 (4), p.202-206</ispartof><rights>1998 BMJ Publishing Group</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-30a2f14345f40c336ab6e6416059b5b0cf21bf852c0a4bcf68ecc0ef3bfdb383</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27922,27923</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9934651$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Williams, L J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hartswood, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prescott, R J</creatorcontrib><title>Methodological issues in mammography double reading studies</title><title>Journal of medical screening</title><addtitle>J Med Screen</addtitle><description>Objectives
An examination of the methods used in assessing cancer detection rates in double reading studies to obtain a clear interpretation of the disparate results from differing studies.
Setting
National breast screening programmes.
Methods
Critical appraisal of methodologies used in the comparison of cancer detection rates with single or double reading.
Results
The reported improvement in cancer detection rate with double reading varies greatly between studies, depending upon whether the study is blinded and the statistic used. A method of calculating the increase in cancer detection rate due to a second reader is proposed.</description><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mammography - methods</subject><subject>Mass Screening - methods</subject><subject>Models, Statistical</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><issn>0969-1413</issn><issn>1475-5793</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1998</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNptkDtPwzAUhS0EKqUwMSNlQkgowTd-JBZTVfGSili6W7Zjp6mSuNjJ0H9PUCsmpjucT0fnfgjdAs4ACH_adTFjGc1ynJ-hOdCCpawQ5BzNseAiBQrkEl3FuMMYE4ByhmZCEMoZzNHzpx22vvKtrxuj2qSJcbQxafqkU13n66D220NS-VG3NglWVU1fJ3EYq8bGa3ThVBvtzeku0Ob1ZbN6T9dfbx-r5To1BIohJVjlDiihzFFsCOFKc8spcMyEZhobl4N2JcsNVlQbx0trDLaOaFdpUpIFuj_W7oP_nsYNsmuisW2reuvHKLkAnheimMDHI2iCjzFYJ_eh6VQ4SMDy15ScTEkmqZxMTfTdqXbUna3-2JOaKX845lHVVu78GPrpyX-rfgCeIHIE</recordid><startdate>19980101</startdate><enddate>19980101</enddate><creator>Williams, L J</creator><creator>Hartswood, M</creator><creator>Prescott, R J</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><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>19980101</creationdate><title>Methodological issues in mammography double reading studies</title><author>Williams, L J ; Hartswood, M ; Prescott, R J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-30a2f14345f40c336ab6e6416059b5b0cf21bf852c0a4bcf68ecc0ef3bfdb383</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1998</creationdate><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mammography - methods</topic><topic>Mass Screening - methods</topic><topic>Models, Statistical</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Williams, L J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hartswood, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prescott, R J</creatorcontrib><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>Journal of medical screening</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Williams, L J</au><au>Hartswood, M</au><au>Prescott, R J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Methodological issues in mammography double reading studies</atitle><jtitle>Journal of medical screening</jtitle><addtitle>J Med Screen</addtitle><date>1998-01-01</date><risdate>1998</risdate><volume>5</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>202</spage><epage>206</epage><pages>202-206</pages><issn>0969-1413</issn><eissn>1475-5793</eissn><abstract>Objectives
An examination of the methods used in assessing cancer detection rates in double reading studies to obtain a clear interpretation of the disparate results from differing studies.
Setting
National breast screening programmes.
Methods
Critical appraisal of methodologies used in the comparison of cancer detection rates with single or double reading.
Results
The reported improvement in cancer detection rate with double reading varies greatly between studies, depending upon whether the study is blinded and the statistic used. A method of calculating the increase in cancer detection rate due to a second reader is proposed.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>9934651</pmid><doi>10.1136/jms.5.4.202</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0969-1413 |
| ispartof | Journal of medical screening, 1998-01, Vol.5 (4), p.202-206 |
| issn | 0969-1413 1475-5793 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69162797 |
| source | MEDLINE; EZB Electronic Journals Library |
| subjects | Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Female Humans Mammography - methods Mass Screening - methods Models, Statistical Observer Variation United Kingdom |
| title | Methodological issues in mammography double reading studies |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T14%3A41%3A45IST&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=Methodological%20issues%20in%20mammography%20double%20reading%20studies&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20medical%20screening&rft.au=Williams,%20L%20J&rft.date=1998-01-01&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=202&rft.epage=206&rft.pages=202-206&rft.issn=0969-1413&rft.eissn=1475-5793&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/jms.5.4.202&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E69162797%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=69162797&rft_id=info:pmid/9934651&rft_sage_id=10.1136_jms.5.4.202&rfr_iscdi=true |