OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the effect of time spent viewing images and level of confidence on a screening mammography test set on interpretive performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiologists from six mammography registries participated in this study and were randomized to interpret one of four test sets and complete 12 survey questions. Each test set had 109 cases of digitized four-view screening screen-film mammograms with prior comparison screening views. Viewing time for each case was defined as the cumulative time spent viewing all mammographic images before recording which visible feature, if any, was the "most significant finding." Log-linear regression fit via the generalized estimating equation was used to test the effect of viewing time and level of confidence in the interpretation on test set sensitivity and false-positive rate. RESULTS:One hundred nineteen radiologists completed a test set and contributed data on 11,484 interpretations. The radiologists spent more time viewing cases that had significant findings or cases for which they had less confidence in their interpretation. Each additional minute of viewing time increased the probability of a true-positive interpretation among cancer cases by 1.12 (95% CI, 1.06-1.19; p < 0.001) regardless of confidence in the assessment. Among the radiologists who were very confident in their assessment, each additional minute of viewing time increased the adjusted risk of a false-positive interpretation among noncancer cases by 1.42 (95% CI, 1.21-1.68), and this viewing-time effect diminished with decreasing confidence. CONCLUSION: Longer interpretation times and higher levels of confidence in an interpretation are both associated with higher sensitivity and false-positive rates in mammography screening.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the effect of time spent viewing images and level of confidence on a screening mammography test set on interpretive performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiologists from six mammography registries participated in this study and were randomized to interpret one of four test sets and complete 12 survey questions. Each test set had 109 cases of digitized four-view screening screen-film mammograms with prior comparison screening views. Viewing time for each case was defined as the cumulative time spent viewing all mammographic images before recording which visible feature, if any, was the "most significant finding." Log-linear regression fit via the generalized estimating equation was used to test the effect of viewing time and level of confidence in the interpretation on test set sensitivity and false-positive rate. RESULTS: One hundred nineteen radiologists completed a test set and contributed data on 11,484 interpretations. The radiologists spent more time viewing cases that had significant findings or cases for which they had less confidence in their interpretation. Each additional minute of viewing time increased the probability of a true-positive interpretation among cancer cases by 1.12 (95% CI, 1.06-1.19; p < 0.001) regardless of confidence in the assessment. Among the radiologists who were very confident in their assessment, each additional minute of viewing time increased the adjusted risk of a false-positive interpretation among noncancer cases by 1.42 (95% CI, 1.21-1.68), and this viewing-time effect diminished with decreasing confidence. CONCLUSION: Longer interpretation times and higher levels of confidence in an interpretation are both associated with higher sensitivity and false-positive rates in mammography screening.
Authors: Claudia Mello-Thoms; Stanley Dunn; Calvin F Nodine; Harold L Kundel; Susan P Weinstein Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Philip M Tchou; Tamara Miner Haygood; E Neely Atkinson; Tanya W Stephens; Paul L Davis; Elsa M Arribas; William R Geiser; Gary J Whitman Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-08-02 Impact factor: 11.105
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
Authors: P A Carney; B M Geller; H Moffett; M Ganger; M Sewell; W E Barlow; N Stalnaker; S H Taplin; C Sisk; V L Ernster; H A Wilkie; B Yankaskas; S P Poplack; N Urban; M M West; R D Rosenberg; S Michael; T D Mercurio; R Ballard-Barbash Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2000-08-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Philip W Chu; Diana L Miglioretti; Edward A Sickles; Roger Blanks; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Janet K Bobo; Nancy C Lee; Matthew G Wallis; Julietta Patnick; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-10-22 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Berta M Geller; Andy Bogart; Patricia A Carney; Edward A Sickles; Robert Smith; Barbara Monsees; Lawrence W Bassett; Diana M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Sebastien Haneuse; Deirdre Hill; Matthew G Wallis; Diana Miglioretti Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Andy Bogart; Edward A Sickles; Robert Smith; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega; Diana L Miglioretti; Robert Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Berta M Geller Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 3.173
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: Ralf H J M Kurvers; Stefan M Herzog; Ralph Hertwig; Jens Krause; Patricia A Carney; Andy Bogart; Giuseppe Argenziano; Iris Zalaudek; Max Wolf Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Diana L Miglioretti; Laura Ichikawa; Robert A Smith; Diana S M Buist; Patricia A Carney; Berta Geller; Barbara Monsees; Tracy Onega; Robert Rosenberg; Edward A Sickles; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2017-05-24 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Tracy Onega; Megan Smith; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Berta A Geller; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Robert D Rosenberg; Robert A Smith; Edward A Sickles; Sebastien Haneuse; Melissa L Anderson; Bonnie Yankaskas Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Tracy Onega; Melissa L Anderson; Diana L Miglioretti; Diana S M Buist; Berta Geller; Andy Bogart; Robert A Smith; Edward A Sickles; Barbara Monsees; Lawrence Bassett; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Bonnie C Yankaskas Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 3.173