Literature DB >> 8011383

Mammography screening. One versus two views and independent double reading.

E Thurfjell1.   

Abstract

Five experienced screeners independently and blindly reviewed mammograms from the first screening round of 46 healthy women, and of 74 women who had histologically proven breast cancers in the first screening round or later. The films were reviewed first as one-view screening and later as two-view screening. Fifty-one breast cancers were detected by at least one of the screeners on either one-view or two-view screening. The mean increase in sensitivity by using two views, instead of one, was 2%. The median of the proportional increase in detected cancers as the result of independent double reading was 14.5% with one-view screening and 12% with two-view screening. Two screeners using one-view screening detected about 10% more cancers than one screener using two-view screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8011383

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Radiol        ISSN: 0284-1851            Impact factor:   1.990


  5 in total

1.  Can breast surgeons read mammograms of symptomatic patients in the one-stop breast clinic?

Authors:  M C Rao; C D Griffith; A B Griffiths
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 1.891

2.  Benefits of the quality assured double and arbitration reading of mammograms in the early diagnosis of breast cancer in symptomatic women.

Authors:  Annika Waldmann; Smaragda Kapsimalakou; Alexander Katalinic; Isabell Grande-Nagel; Beate M Stoeckelhuber; Dorothea Fischer; Joerg Barkhausen; Florian M Vogt
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-11-18       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Using the European guidelines to evaluate the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Berta Geller; Pamela M Vacek; Steinar Thoresen; Per Skaane
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-06-27       Impact factor: 8.082

4.  Variable size computer-aided detection prompts and mammography film reader decisions.

Authors:  Fiona J Gilbert; Susan M Astley; Caroline Rm Boggis; Magnus A McGee; Pamela M Griffiths; Stephen W Duffy; Olorunsola F Agbaje; Maureen Gc Gillan; Mary Wilson; Anil K Jain; Nicola Barr; Ursula M Beetles; Miriam A Griffiths; Jill Johnson; Rita M Roberts; Heather E Deans; Karen A Duncan; Geeta Iyengar
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2008-08-25       Impact factor: 6.466

5.  Cost-Effectiveness of Double Reading versus Single Reading of Mammograms in a Breast Cancer Screening Programme.

Authors:  Margarita Posso; Misericòrdia Carles; Montserrat Rué; Teresa Puig; Xavier Bonfill
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-26       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.