Literature DB >> 19294388

Should previous mammograms be digitised in the transition to digital mammography?

S Taylor-Phillips1, M G Wallis, A G Gale.   

Abstract

Breast screening specificity is improved if previous mammograms are available, which presents a challenge when converting to digital mammography. Two display options were investigated: mounting previous film mammograms on a multiviewer adjacent to the workstation, or digitising them for soft copy display. Eight qualified screen readers were videotaped undertaking routine screen reading for two 45-min sessions in each scenario. Analysis of gross eye and head movements showed that when digitised, previous mammograms were examined a greater number of times per case (p = 0.03), due to a combination of being used in 19% more cases (p = 0.04) and where used, looked at a greater number of times (28% increase, p = 0.04). Digitising previous mammograms reduced both the average time taken per case by 18% (p = 0.04) and the participants' perceptions of workload (p < 0.05). Digitising previous analogue mammograms may be advantageous, in particular in increasing their level of use.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19294388     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-009-1366-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  17 in total

1.  Effect on sensitivity and specificity of mammography screening with or without comparison of old mammograms.

Authors:  M G Thurfjell; B Vitak; E Azavedo; G Svane; E Thurfjell
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 1.990

2.  Use of prior mammograms in the classification of benign and malignant masses.

Authors:  Celia Varela; Nico Karssemeijer; Jan H C L Hendriks; Roland Holland
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 3.528

3.  Digital mammography. ROC studies of the effects of pixel size and unsharp-mask filtering on the detection of subtle microcalcifications.

Authors:  H P Chan; C J Vyborny; H MacMahon; C E Metz; K Doi; E A Sickles
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1987-07       Impact factor: 6.016

4.  Differential value of comparison with previous examinations in diagnostic versus screening mammography.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Burnside; Edward A Sickles; Rita E Sohlich; Katherine E Dee
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-11       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.  Comparison of digital and conventional mammography: a ROC study of 270 mammograms.

Authors:  H W Nab; N Karssemeijer; L J Van Erning; J H Hendriks
Journal:  Med Inform (Lond)       Date:  1992 Apr-Jun

7.  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

8.  Utilization and cost of diagnostic imaging and biopsies following positive screening mammography in the southern breast cancer screening region of the Netherlands, 2000-2005.

Authors:  Lucien E M Duijm; Johanna H Groenewoud; Jacques Fracheboud; Menno L Plaisier; Rudi M H Roumen; B Martin van Ineveld; Mike van Beek; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-05-20       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  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

10.  Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study.

Authors:  Einar Vigeland; Herman Klaasen; Tor Audun Klingen; Solveig Hofvind; Per Skaane
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-08-07       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  3 in total

1.  Double Reading in Breast Cancer Screening: Cohort Evaluation in the CO-OPS Trial.

Authors:  Sian Taylor-Phillips; David Jenkinson; Chris Stinton; Matthew G Wallis; Janet Dunn; Aileen Clarke
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-04-10       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Changing case Order to Optimise patterns of Performance in mammography Screening (CO-OPS): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Sian Taylor-Phillips; Matthew G Wallis; Helen Parsons; Janet Dunn; Nigel Stallard; Helen Campbell; Sarah Sellars; Ala Szczepura; Simon Gates; Aileen Clarke
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-01-10       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 3.  Measurement of mental workload in clinical medicine: a review study.

Authors:  Aidan Byrne
Journal:  Anesth Pain Med       Date:  2011-09-26
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.