PURPOSE: To compare the reading time for full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and screen-film mammography (SFM) using a recommended reading method and to provide data regarding the reading time required to establish the optimal conditions for digital mammography. METHODS: Reading time was measured during image interpretation by two expert radiologists. FFDM images were taken for screening, and readers A and B read images obtained for 79 and 82 patients, respectively. The mammograms read by both readers were similar with regard to patients' backgrounds. Further, 100 SFM mammograms were read to perform comparative analyses. The reading times were compared. RESULT: Reader A recorded mean reading times of 31 and 56 s, respectively, for the SFM and FFDM images with no comparative mammograms, and means of 45 and 62 s for those with comparative mammograms. Reader B recorded mean reading times of 43 and 74 s, respectively, for SFM and FFDM images with no comparative mammograms, and 53 and 66 s for those with comparative mammograms. CONCLUSION: The reading time is prolonged in FFDM performed according to a recommended method. Post-processing is thought to affect the reading time.
PURPOSE: To compare the reading time for full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and screen-film mammography (SFM) using a recommended reading method and to provide data regarding the reading time required to establish the optimal conditions for digital mammography. METHODS: Reading time was measured during image interpretation by two expert radiologists. FFDM images were taken for screening, and readers A and B read images obtained for 79 and 82 patients, respectively. The mammograms read by both readers were similar with regard to patients' backgrounds. Further, 100 SFM mammograms were read to perform comparative analyses. The reading times were compared. RESULT: Reader A recorded mean reading times of 31 and 56 s, respectively, for the SFM and FFDM images with no comparative mammograms, and means of 45 and 62 s for those with comparative mammograms. Reader B recorded mean reading times of 43 and 74 s, respectively, for SFM and FFDM images with no comparative mammograms, and 53 and 66 s for those with comparative mammograms. CONCLUSION: The reading time is prolonged in FFDM performed according to a recommended method. Post-processing is thought to affect the reading time.
Authors: Berta M Geller; Andy Bogart; Patricia A Carney; Joann G Elmore; Barbara S Monsees; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Patricia A Carney; T Andrew Bogart; Berta M Geller; Sebastian Haneuse; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Robert Smith; Robert Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Tracy Onega; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 3.959