C A Beam1, D C Sullivan, P M Layde. 1. Department of Family and Community Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee 53226, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the range of gains and losses that radiologists might experience from independent double reading in screening mammography. METHODS: From a national random sample of radiologists, the authors formed 131 pairs. For each radiologist, the authors analyzed the increase relative to his or her individual true-positive rate (TPR) or false-positive rate (FPR), number of additional cancers detected, and change to negative biopsy rate that would result from independent double reading after pairing. RESULTS: The average radiologist can expect an 8%-14% gain in TPR and a 4%-10% increase in FPR with pairing. For some radiologists, double reading increased the TPR with a small concomitant increase in FPR. Other radiologists, however, realized small gains in TPR with large increases in FPR. Adding the reading from a more experienced radiologist did not necessarily improve the TPR of a radiologist with less experience. CONCLUSION: Radiologists can form complementary and noncomplementary pairs for double reading. Use of this procedure must be decided on an individual basis.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the range of gains and losses that radiologists might experience from independent double reading in screening mammography. METHODS: From a national random sample of radiologists, the authors formed 131 pairs. For each radiologist, the authors analyzed the increase relative to his or her individual true-positive rate (TPR) or false-positive rate (FPR), number of additional cancers detected, and change to negative biopsy rate that would result from independent double reading after pairing. RESULTS: The average radiologist can expect an 8%-14% gain in TPR and a 4%-10% increase in FPR with pairing. For some radiologists, double reading increased the TPR with a small concomitant increase in FPR. Other radiologists, however, realized small gains in TPR with large increases in FPR. Adding the reading from a more experienced radiologist did not necessarily improve the TPR of a radiologist with less experience. CONCLUSION: Radiologists can form complementary and noncomplementary pairs for double reading. Use of this procedure must be decided on an individual basis.
Authors: Jun Ge; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Berkman Sahiner; Jun Wei; Mark A Helvie; Chuan Zhou; Heang-Ping Chan Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2007-01-23 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Jun Wei; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Berkman Sahiner; Heang-Ping Chan; Jun Ge; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Mark A Helvie; Chuan Zhou; Yi-Ta Wu; Chintana Paramagul; Yiheng Zhang Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Alyssa T Watanabe; Vivian Lim; Hoanh X Vu; Richard Chim; Eric Weise; Jenna Liu; William G Bradley; Christopher E Comstock Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: L E M Duijm; M W J Louwman; J H Groenewoud; L V van de Poll-Franse; J Fracheboud; J W Coebergh Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-03-03 Impact factor: 7.640