Results of a Survey on Digital Screening Mammography: Prevalence, Efficiency, and Use of Ancillary Diagnostic Aids
Objective As the use of full-field digital screening mammography grows rapidly, this study was conducted to determine the time required to interpret digital soft-copy (filmless) mammography compared with conventional film-screen screening mammography and to evaluate radiologists’ use of ancillary di...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of the American College of Radiology 2008-04, Vol.5 (4), p.585-592 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 592 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 585 |
container_title | Journal of the American College of Radiology |
container_volume | 5 |
creator | Haygood, Tamara Miner, PhD, MD Whitman, Gary J., MD Atkinson, E. Neely, PhD Nikolova, Rumiana G., MS Sandoval, Sheisa Y. Claudio Dempsey, Peter J., MD |
description | Objective As the use of full-field digital screening mammography grows rapidly, this study was conducted to determine the time required to interpret digital soft-copy (filmless) mammography compared with conventional film-screen screening mammography and to evaluate radiologists’ use of ancillary diagnostic aids when interpreting digital mammography (DM) and conventional film-screen mammography (FSM). Materials and Methods An 18-question survey was sent to 1,703 members of the Society of Breast Imaging, whose e-mail addresses were provided by the society. After subtracting those from whom out-of-office e-mail responses were received and three who wrote back to exclude themselves, there were 1,659 potential participants. Data from the respondents were collected and analyzed by tabulation and cross-tabulation. Results In total, 396 members of the Society of Breast Imaging completed and returned surveys, for a 23.9% response rate. Of the respondents, 49.0% said that they had access to and interpreted DM. Their estimated average time to read a single digital mammographic study was 2.6 minutes, compared with 2.0 minutes for reading a single film-screen mammographic study. Therefore, the perceived time difference was 0.6 minutes. Magnification was the main ancillary diagnostic aid used in interpreting both DM and FSM: 74.2% of respondents used computer-based magnification at least half the time in interpreting DM, and 90.9% used optical magnification at least half the time in interpreting FSM. Optical magnification was also used by 28.5% of respondents at least half the time in interpreting DM. The respondents also used computer-aided detection frequently: 91.0% and 76.3% of those who had computer-aided detection available said that they used it at least 75% of the time in interpreting DM and FSM, respectively. Conclusion Digital mammography takes longer to interpret than FSM. Radiologists use various ancillary diagnostic aids, but magnification and computer-aided detection are the two most commonly used aids. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jacr.2007.10.019 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70427552</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S1546144007006412</els_id><sourcerecordid>70427552</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c324t-d58f5c9898a2f8cac8b92518fbf66ff8d24437b0fc65f009166b5397765b10ef3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU9v1DAQxSMEoqXwBTggnzg1W9uxYwehSqvSP0itQCyVuFmOM14cEmexk5Xy7XHYlZA49DSj0XtPM7_JsrcErwgm5UW7arUJK4qxSIMVJtWz7JRwLvOCVT-eLz0rc8IYPslexdhiTIWQ8mV2QmTBK8bEaRa-QZy6MaLBIo02U9jDjAaPPrmtG3WHNiYAeOe36EH3_bANevdz_oC-BtjrDryBc3RtrTMu9fM50r5BjxGWtLU3rut0mFOW3vohjs6gtWvi6-yF1V2EN8d6lj3eXH-_usvvv9x-vlrf56agbMwbLi03laykplYabWRdUU6krW1ZWisbylghamxNyS3GFSnLmheVECWvCQZbnGXvD7m7MPyeII6qd9FA2snDMEUlMKOCc5qE9CA0YYgxgFW74Pq0uSJYLaRVqxbSaiG9zBLpZHp3TJ_qHpp_liPaJPh4EEC6ce8gqPiXEjQugBlVM7in8y__s5vOeWd09wtmiO0wBZ_oKaIiVVhtll8vr8YC45IRWvwB4mykWw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>70427552</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Results of a Survey on Digital Screening Mammography: Prevalence, Efficiency, and Use of Ancillary Diagnostic Aids</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Haygood, Tamara Miner, PhD, MD ; Whitman, Gary J., MD ; Atkinson, E. Neely, PhD ; Nikolova, Rumiana G., MS ; Sandoval, Sheisa Y. Claudio ; Dempsey, Peter J., MD</creator><creatorcontrib>Haygood, Tamara Miner, PhD, MD ; Whitman, Gary J., MD ; Atkinson, E. Neely, PhD ; Nikolova, Rumiana G., MS ; Sandoval, Sheisa Y. Claudio ; Dempsey, Peter J., MD</creatorcontrib><description>Objective As the use of full-field digital screening mammography grows rapidly, this study was conducted to determine the time required to interpret digital soft-copy (filmless) mammography compared with conventional film-screen screening mammography and to evaluate radiologists’ use of ancillary diagnostic aids when interpreting digital mammography (DM) and conventional film-screen mammography (FSM). Materials and Methods An 18-question survey was sent to 1,703 members of the Society of Breast Imaging, whose e-mail addresses were provided by the society. After subtracting those from whom out-of-office e-mail responses were received and three who wrote back to exclude themselves, there were 1,659 potential participants. Data from the respondents were collected and analyzed by tabulation and cross-tabulation. Results In total, 396 members of the Society of Breast Imaging completed and returned surveys, for a 23.9% response rate. Of the respondents, 49.0% said that they had access to and interpreted DM. Their estimated average time to read a single digital mammographic study was 2.6 minutes, compared with 2.0 minutes for reading a single film-screen mammographic study. Therefore, the perceived time difference was 0.6 minutes. Magnification was the main ancillary diagnostic aid used in interpreting both DM and FSM: 74.2% of respondents used computer-based magnification at least half the time in interpreting DM, and 90.9% used optical magnification at least half the time in interpreting FSM. Optical magnification was also used by 28.5% of respondents at least half the time in interpreting DM. The respondents also used computer-aided detection frequently: 91.0% and 76.3% of those who had computer-aided detection available said that they used it at least 75% of the time in interpreting DM and FSM, respectively. Conclusion Digital mammography takes longer to interpret than FSM. Radiologists use various ancillary diagnostic aids, but magnification and computer-aided detection are the two most commonly used aids.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1546-1440</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1558-349X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2007.10.019</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18359447</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology ; CAD ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; digital imaging ; digital mammography ; Efficiency ; Female ; Humans ; Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted ; Mammography - methods ; Mammography - statistics & numerical data ; Mass Screening - instrumentation ; Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data ; Observer Variation ; Prevalence ; Radiographic Image Enhancement ; Radiographic Magnification - instrumentation ; Radiographic Magnification - statistics & numerical data ; Radiology ; Reproducibility of Results ; ROC Curve ; Screening mammography ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; United States</subject><ispartof>Journal of the American College of Radiology, 2008-04, Vol.5 (4), p.585-592</ispartof><rights>American College of Radiology</rights><rights>2008 American College of Radiology</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c324t-d58f5c9898a2f8cac8b92518fbf66ff8d24437b0fc65f009166b5397765b10ef3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c324t-d58f5c9898a2f8cac8b92518fbf66ff8d24437b0fc65f009166b5397765b10ef3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2007.10.019$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3541,27915,27916,45986</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18359447$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Haygood, Tamara Miner, PhD, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whitman, Gary J., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atkinson, E. Neely, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nikolova, Rumiana G., MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sandoval, Sheisa Y. Claudio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dempsey, Peter J., MD</creatorcontrib><title>Results of a Survey on Digital Screening Mammography: Prevalence, Efficiency, and Use of Ancillary Diagnostic Aids</title><title>Journal of the American College of Radiology</title><addtitle>J Am Coll Radiol</addtitle><description>Objective As the use of full-field digital screening mammography grows rapidly, this study was conducted to determine the time required to interpret digital soft-copy (filmless) mammography compared with conventional film-screen screening mammography and to evaluate radiologists’ use of ancillary diagnostic aids when interpreting digital mammography (DM) and conventional film-screen mammography (FSM). Materials and Methods An 18-question survey was sent to 1,703 members of the Society of Breast Imaging, whose e-mail addresses were provided by the society. After subtracting those from whom out-of-office e-mail responses were received and three who wrote back to exclude themselves, there were 1,659 potential participants. Data from the respondents were collected and analyzed by tabulation and cross-tabulation. Results In total, 396 members of the Society of Breast Imaging completed and returned surveys, for a 23.9% response rate. Of the respondents, 49.0% said that they had access to and interpreted DM. Their estimated average time to read a single digital mammographic study was 2.6 minutes, compared with 2.0 minutes for reading a single film-screen mammographic study. Therefore, the perceived time difference was 0.6 minutes. Magnification was the main ancillary diagnostic aid used in interpreting both DM and FSM: 74.2% of respondents used computer-based magnification at least half the time in interpreting DM, and 90.9% used optical magnification at least half the time in interpreting FSM. Optical magnification was also used by 28.5% of respondents at least half the time in interpreting DM. The respondents also used computer-aided detection frequently: 91.0% and 76.3% of those who had computer-aided detection available said that they used it at least 75% of the time in interpreting DM and FSM, respectively. Conclusion Digital mammography takes longer to interpret than FSM. Radiologists use various ancillary diagnostic aids, but magnification and computer-aided detection are the two most commonly used aids.</description><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology</subject><subject>CAD</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>digital imaging</subject><subject>digital mammography</subject><subject>Efficiency</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted</subject><subject>Mammography - methods</subject><subject>Mammography - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Mass Screening - instrumentation</subject><subject>Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Prevalence</subject><subject>Radiographic Image Enhancement</subject><subject>Radiographic Magnification - instrumentation</subject><subject>Radiographic Magnification - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>ROC Curve</subject><subject>Screening mammography</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>1546-1440</issn><issn>1558-349X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU9v1DAQxSMEoqXwBTggnzg1W9uxYwehSqvSP0itQCyVuFmOM14cEmexk5Xy7XHYlZA49DSj0XtPM7_JsrcErwgm5UW7arUJK4qxSIMVJtWz7JRwLvOCVT-eLz0rc8IYPslexdhiTIWQ8mV2QmTBK8bEaRa-QZy6MaLBIo02U9jDjAaPPrmtG3WHNiYAeOe36EH3_bANevdz_oC-BtjrDryBc3RtrTMu9fM50r5BjxGWtLU3rut0mFOW3vohjs6gtWvi6-yF1V2EN8d6lj3eXH-_usvvv9x-vlrf56agbMwbLi03laykplYabWRdUU6krW1ZWisbylghamxNyS3GFSnLmheVECWvCQZbnGXvD7m7MPyeII6qd9FA2snDMEUlMKOCc5qE9CA0YYgxgFW74Pq0uSJYLaRVqxbSaiG9zBLpZHp3TJ_qHpp_liPaJPh4EEC6ce8gqPiXEjQugBlVM7in8y__s5vOeWd09wtmiO0wBZ_oKaIiVVhtll8vr8YC45IRWvwB4mykWw</recordid><startdate>200804</startdate><enddate>200804</enddate><creator>Haygood, Tamara Miner, PhD, MD</creator><creator>Whitman, Gary J., MD</creator><creator>Atkinson, E. Neely, PhD</creator><creator>Nikolova, Rumiana G., MS</creator><creator>Sandoval, Sheisa Y. Claudio</creator><creator>Dempsey, Peter J., MD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</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>200804</creationdate><title>Results of a Survey on Digital Screening Mammography: Prevalence, Efficiency, and Use of Ancillary Diagnostic Aids</title><author>Haygood, Tamara Miner, PhD, MD ; Whitman, Gary J., MD ; Atkinson, E. Neely, PhD ; Nikolova, Rumiana G., MS ; Sandoval, Sheisa Y. Claudio ; Dempsey, Peter J., MD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c324t-d58f5c9898a2f8cac8b92518fbf66ff8d24437b0fc65f009166b5397765b10ef3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology</topic><topic>CAD</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>digital imaging</topic><topic>digital mammography</topic><topic>Efficiency</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted</topic><topic>Mammography - methods</topic><topic>Mammography - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Mass Screening - instrumentation</topic><topic>Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Prevalence</topic><topic>Radiographic Image Enhancement</topic><topic>Radiographic Magnification - instrumentation</topic><topic>Radiographic Magnification - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>ROC Curve</topic><topic>Screening mammography</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Haygood, Tamara Miner, PhD, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whitman, Gary J., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atkinson, E. Neely, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nikolova, Rumiana G., MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sandoval, Sheisa Y. Claudio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dempsey, Peter J., MD</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 the American College of Radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Haygood, Tamara Miner, PhD, MD</au><au>Whitman, Gary J., MD</au><au>Atkinson, E. Neely, PhD</au><au>Nikolova, Rumiana G., MS</au><au>Sandoval, Sheisa Y. Claudio</au><au>Dempsey, Peter J., MD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Results of a Survey on Digital Screening Mammography: Prevalence, Efficiency, and Use of Ancillary Diagnostic Aids</atitle><jtitle>Journal of the American College of Radiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Am Coll Radiol</addtitle><date>2008-04</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>5</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>585</spage><epage>592</epage><pages>585-592</pages><issn>1546-1440</issn><eissn>1558-349X</eissn><abstract>Objective As the use of full-field digital screening mammography grows rapidly, this study was conducted to determine the time required to interpret digital soft-copy (filmless) mammography compared with conventional film-screen screening mammography and to evaluate radiologists’ use of ancillary diagnostic aids when interpreting digital mammography (DM) and conventional film-screen mammography (FSM). Materials and Methods An 18-question survey was sent to 1,703 members of the Society of Breast Imaging, whose e-mail addresses were provided by the society. After subtracting those from whom out-of-office e-mail responses were received and three who wrote back to exclude themselves, there were 1,659 potential participants. Data from the respondents were collected and analyzed by tabulation and cross-tabulation. Results In total, 396 members of the Society of Breast Imaging completed and returned surveys, for a 23.9% response rate. Of the respondents, 49.0% said that they had access to and interpreted DM. Their estimated average time to read a single digital mammographic study was 2.6 minutes, compared with 2.0 minutes for reading a single film-screen mammographic study. Therefore, the perceived time difference was 0.6 minutes. Magnification was the main ancillary diagnostic aid used in interpreting both DM and FSM: 74.2% of respondents used computer-based magnification at least half the time in interpreting DM, and 90.9% used optical magnification at least half the time in interpreting FSM. Optical magnification was also used by 28.5% of respondents at least half the time in interpreting DM. The respondents also used computer-aided detection frequently: 91.0% and 76.3% of those who had computer-aided detection available said that they used it at least 75% of the time in interpreting DM and FSM, respectively. Conclusion Digital mammography takes longer to interpret than FSM. Radiologists use various ancillary diagnostic aids, but magnification and computer-aided detection are the two most commonly used aids.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>18359447</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jacr.2007.10.019</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1546-1440 |
ispartof | Journal of the American College of Radiology, 2008-04, Vol.5 (4), p.585-592 |
issn | 1546-1440 1558-349X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70427552 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
subjects | Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology CAD Cross-Sectional Studies digital imaging digital mammography Efficiency Female Humans Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted Mammography - methods Mammography - statistics & numerical data Mass Screening - instrumentation Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data Observer Variation Prevalence Radiographic Image Enhancement Radiographic Magnification - instrumentation Radiographic Magnification - statistics & numerical data Radiology Reproducibility of Results ROC Curve Screening mammography Sensitivity and Specificity Surveys and Questionnaires United States |
title | Results of a Survey on Digital Screening Mammography: Prevalence, Efficiency, and Use of Ancillary Diagnostic Aids |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T20%3A15%3A12IST&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=Results%20of%20a%20Survey%20on%20Digital%20Screening%20Mammography:%20Prevalence,%20Efficiency,%20and%20Use%20of%20Ancillary%20Diagnostic%20Aids&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20the%20American%20College%20of%20Radiology&rft.au=Haygood,%20Tamara%20Miner,%20PhD,%20MD&rft.date=2008-04&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=585&rft.epage=592&rft.pages=585-592&rft.issn=1546-1440&rft.eissn=1558-349X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jacr.2007.10.019&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E70427552%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=70427552&rft_id=info:pmid/18359447&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S1546144007006412&rfr_iscdi=true |