Literature DB >> 19214635

Why does it take longer to read digital than film-screen screening mammograms? A partial explanation.

Tamara Miner Haygood1, Jihong Wang, Deanna Lane, Eva Galvan, E Neely Atkinson, Tanya Stephens, Gary J Whitman.   

Abstract

Digital screening mammograms (DM) take longer to interpret than film-screen screening mammograms (FSM). We evaluated what part of the process takes long in our reading environment. We selected cases from those for which timed readings had been performed as part of a previous study. Readers were timed as they performed various computer manipulations on groups of DM cases and as they moved the alternator and adjusted lighting and manual shutters for FSM cases. Subtracting manipulation time from the original interpretation times yielded estimated times to reach a decision. Manipulation times for DM ranged from a low of 11 s when four-view DM were simply opened and closed in a 4-on-1 hanging protocol before moving on to the next study to 113.8 s when each view of six-view DM were brought up 1-on-1, enlarged to 100% resolution, and panned through. Manipulation times for groups of FSM ranged from 8.3 to 12.1 s. Estimated decision-making times for DM ranged from 128.0 to 202.2 s, while estimated decision-making time for FSM ranged from 60.9 to 146.3 s. Computer manipulation time partially explains the discrepancy in interaction times between DM and FSM. Radiologists also appear to spend more time looking at DM than at FSM before making a decision.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19214635      PMCID: PMC3043768          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-009-9177-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  15 in total

1.  [Time needs in evaluating digital thoracic images on the monitor in comparison with alternator].

Authors:  K A Herrmann; H M Bonél; A Stäbler; M Matzko; T Waggershauser; H Sittek; M F Reiser
Journal:  Rontgenpraxis       Date:  2001

2.  Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Elodia B Cole; Emily O Kistner; Keith E Muller; Bradley M Hemminger; Mary L Brown; R Eugene Johnston; Cherie M Kuzmiak; M Patricia Braeuning; Rita I Freimanis; Mary Scott Soo; J A Baker; Ruth Walsh
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Soft copy display requirements for digital mammography.

Authors:  Bradley M Hemminger
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2003-12-15       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times.

Authors:  Eric A Berns; R Edward Hendrick; Mariana Solari; Lora Barke; Denise Reddy; Judith Wolfman; Lewis Segal; Patricia DeLeon; Stefanie Benjamin; Laura Willis
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--Oslo I study.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Kari Young; Arnulf Skjennald
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-10-23       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan Digital Mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population.

Authors:  Elodia Cole; Etta D Pisano; Mary Brown; Cherie Kuzmiak; M Patricia Braeuning; Hak Hee Kim; Roberta Jong; Ruth Walsh
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 3.173

8.  Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts.

Authors:  Marco Rosselli Del Turco; Paola Mantellini; Stefano Ciatto; Rita Bonardi; Francesca Martinelli; Barbara Lazzari; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Solveig Hofvind; Arnulf Skjennald
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Arnulf Skjennald
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-05-20       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  2 in total

1.  Assessing health care use and cost consequences of a new screening modality: the case of digital mammography.

Authors:  Louise M Henderson; Rebecca A Hubbard; Tracy L Onega; Weiwei Zhu; Diana S M Buist; Paul Fishman; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Barriers and facilitators to adoption of soft copy interpretation from the user perspective: Lessons learned from filmless radiology for slideless pathology.

Authors:  Emily S Patterson; Mike Rayo; Carolina Gill; Metin N Gurcan
Journal:  J Pathol Inform       Date:  2011-01-07
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.