Literature DB >> 1627374

Inter-observer and intra-observer variability of mammogram interpretation: a field study.

G Ciccone1, P Vineis, A Frigerio, N Segnan.   

Abstract

To evaluate the performance of radiologists in mammographic mass screening, seven radiologists read blindly the mammograms of 45 women (two views for each breast). The films included 12 normal, 24 benign disease and 9 cancers. The readings were repeated after 2 years. As expected, variability was higher among radiologists than between the two readings of the same radiologist, but general reproducibility was moderate. Kappa values for a positive/negative classification were 0.45 at the first and 0.44 at the second reading (inter-observer comparisons). For the intra-observer comparisons, Kappa values ranged from 0.35 to 0.67 (mean 0.56). Generally, accuracy was low partly due to the difficulty of the cases. A slight increase in sensitivity was observed at the second reading. The level of agreement is a good indicator of accuracy. Proper training and standardization of criteria are essential before mass breast screening is implemented.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1627374     DOI: 10.1016/0959-8049(92)90455-b

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  6 in total

1.  Examining accuracy of screening mammography using an event order model.

Authors:  Prashni Paliwal; Alan E Gelfand; Linn Abraham; William Barlow; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2006-01-30       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  The Canadian National Breast Screening Study: opportunity for a rethink.

Authors:  A S Basinski
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1992-11-15       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Evaluation of reader variability in the interpretation of follow-up CT scans at lung cancer screening.

Authors:  Satinder Singh; Paul Pinsky; Naomi S Fineberg; David S Gierada; Kavita Garg; Yanhui Sun; P Hrudaya Nath
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-01-19       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Diana L Miglioretti; Lisa M Reisch; Mary B Barton; William Kreuter; Cindy L Christiansen; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-09-18       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Using automatically extracted information from mammography reports for decision-support.

Authors:  Selen Bozkurt; Francisco Gimenez; Elizabeth S Burnside; Kemal H Gulkesen; Daniel L Rubin
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2016-07-04       Impact factor: 6.317

6.  Observer agreement using the ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS)-ultrasound, First Edition (2003).

Authors:  Chang Suk Park; Jae Hee Lee; Hyeon Woo Yim; Bong Joo Kang; Hyeon Sook Kim; Jung Im Jung; Na Young Jung; Sung Hun Kim
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2007 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.500

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.