Literature DB >> 17764941

Performance of radiographers in mammogram interpretation: a systematic review.

F J H M van den Biggelaar1, P J Nelemans, K Flobbe.   

Abstract

Radiologists may be relieved from work that could be performed by radiographers. This systematic literature review focuses on the performance of radiographers (also referring to technologists and physician assistants) compared with radiologists in the interpretation of mammograms; the effect of training; and the question whether there are any studies evaluating the effects of involving radiographers in the interpretation of diagnostic mammograms in daily clinical practice on the sensitivity and specificity of cancer detection in breast imaging. Six studies met the inclusion criteria (primary aim of the study has to be the evaluation of the performance of radiographers, sensitivity and specificity have to be reported or calculable and there has to be a sufficient gold standard). The results showed that, in a screening setting, radiographers scored higher false positive rates with a similar sensitivity in the detection of malignancies, compared with radiologists. Furthermore, results suggested that training could improve their performance. No studies were reported assessing the performance of radiographers interpreting diagnostic mammograms in a consecutive patient population in a daily clinical setting. This indicates a need for a well-designed diagnostic study using an adequate gold standard, in order to evaluate the feasibility of deploying radiographers in the interpretation of diagnostic mammograms in a clinical setting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17764941     DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2007.07.035

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast        ISSN: 0960-9776            Impact factor:   4.380


  14 in total

1.  Radiological technologists' performance for the detection of malignant microcalcifications in digital mammograms without and with a computer-aided detection system.

Authors:  Rie Tanaka; Miho Takamori; Yoshikazu Uchiyama; Junji Shiraishi
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-05-27

2.  Using breast radiographers' reports as a second opinion for radiologists' readings of microcalcifications in digital mammography.

Authors:  R Tanaka; M Takamori; Y Uchiyama; R M Nishikawa; J Shiraishi
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-12-23       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  The impact of simulated motion blur on lesion detection performance in full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  Ahmed K Abdullah; Judith Kelly; John D Thompson; Claire E Mercer; Rob Aspin; Peter Hogg
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-06-16       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Comparison of sensitivity of lung nodule detection between radiologists and technologists on low-dose CT lung cancer screening images.

Authors:  R Kakinuma; K Ashizawa; T Kobayashi; A Fukushima; H Hayashi; T Kondo; M Machida; M Matsusako; K Minami; K Oikado; M Okuda; S Takamatsu; M Sugawara; S Gomi; Y Muramatsu; K Hanai; Y Muramatsu; M Kaneko; R Tsuchiya; N Moriyama
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Can radiographers be trained to triage CT colonography for extracolonic findings?

Authors:  Thierry N Boellaard; C Yung Nio; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Shandra Bipat; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-07-03       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Radiographers supporting radiologists in the interpretation of screening mammography: a viable strategy to meet the shortage in the number of radiologists.

Authors:  Gabriela Torres-Mejía; Robert A Smith; María de la Luz Carranza-Flores; Andy Bogart; Louis Martínez-Matsushita; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Carolina Ortega-Olvera; Ernesto Montemayor-Varela; Angélica Angeles-Llerenas; Sergio Bautista-Arredondo; Gilberto Sánchez-González; Olga G Martínez-Montañez; Santos R Uscanga-Sánchez; Eduardo Lazcano-Ponce; Mauricio Hernández-Ávila
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2015-05-16       Impact factor: 4.430

7.  Computer-aided assessment of diagnostic images for epidemiological research.

Authors:  Alison G Abraham; Donald D Duncan; Stephen J Gange; Sheila West
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2009-11-11       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  Evaluating radiographers' diagnostic accuracy in screen-reading mammograms: what constitutes a quality study?

Authors:  Josephine C Debono; Ann E Poulos
Journal:  J Med Radiat Sci       Date:  2014-08-14

9.  Evaluation of radiographers' mammography screen-reading accuracy in Australia.

Authors:  Josephine C Debono; Ann E Poulos; Nehmat Houssami; Robin M Turner; John Boyages
Journal:  J Med Radiat Sci       Date:  2014-08-06

10.  Non-invasive early detection of cancer four years before conventional diagnosis using a blood test.

Authors:  Xingdong Chen; Jeffrey Gole; Athurva Gore; Qiye He; Ming Lu; Jun Min; Ziyu Yuan; Xiaorong Yang; Yanfeng Jiang; Tiejun Zhang; Chen Suo; Xiaojie Li; Lei Cheng; Zhenhua Zhang; Hongyu Niu; Zhe Li; Zhen Xie; Han Shi; Xiang Zhang; Min Fan; Xiaofeng Wang; Yajun Yang; Justin Dang; Catie McConnell; Juan Zhang; Jiucun Wang; Shunzhang Yu; Weimin Ye; Yuan Gao; Kun Zhang; Rui Liu; Li Jin
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2020-07-21       Impact factor: 14.919

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.