ArticleBritish journal of cancer2009
Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is confidence of mammographic assessment a good predictor of accuracy?AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2012Trial
- The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on BI-RADS Classification and Diagnostic Confidence in Mammography Interpretation by Radiology Residents.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Interobserver variability of recall decisions between mammography readers in the English NHS breast screening programme: A comparison of interobserver variability measures.European journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Confidence-Aware Severity Assessment of Lung Disease from Chest X-Rays Using Deep Neural Network on a Multi-Reader Dataset.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Machine Learning-Based Approaches for Breast Density Estimation from Mammograms: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of imaging · 2025Review
- Variations of image interpretations of radiologists from different populations in mammography and tomosynthesis with different levels of breast density.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2023Article
- Audit of Prior Screening Mammograms of Screen-Detected Cancers: Implications for the Delay in Breast Cancer Detection.Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR · 2023Review
- Detecting Abnormal Axillary Lymph Nodes on Mammograms Using a Deep Convolutional Neural Network.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Improved automated early detection of breast cancer based on high resolution 3D micro-CT microcalcification images.BMC cancer · 2022Article
- Testing and improving the acceptability of a web-based platform for collective intelligence to improve diagnostic accuracy in primary care clinics.JAMIA open · 2019Article
- Interpretive Performance and Inter-Observer Agreement on Digital Mammography Test Sets.Korean journal of radiology · 2019Article
- Characteristics of screen-detected cancers following concordant or discordant recalls at blinded double reading in biennial digital screening mammography.European radiology · 2019Article
- An automated mammogram classification system using modified support vector machine.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2019Article
- Impact of the second reader on screening outcome at blinded double reading of digital screening mammograms.British journal of cancer · 2018Article
- An investigation into the mammographic appearances of missed breast cancers when recall rates are reduced.The British journal of radiology · 2017Article
- Using automatically extracted information from mammography reports for decision-support.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2016Article
- Comparison of the diagnostic workup of women referred at non-blinded or blinded double reading in a population-based screening mammography programme in the south of the Netherlands.British journal of cancer · 2015Article
- Article
- The influence of mammographic technologists on radiologists' ability to interpret screening mammograms in community practice.Academic radiology · 2015Article
- Evaluation of radiographers' mammography screen-reading accuracy in Australia.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We prospectively determined the variability in radiologists' interpretation of screening mammograms and assessed the influence of type and number of readers on screening outcome. Twenty-one screening mammography radiographers and eight screening radiologists participated. A total of 106,093 screening mammograms were double-read by two radiographers and, in turn, by two radiologists. Initially, radiologists were blinded to the referral opinion of the radiographers. A woman was referred if she was considered positive at radiologist double-reading with consensus interpretation or referred after radiologist review of positive cases at radiographer double-reading. During 2-year follow-up, clinical data, breast imaging reports, biopsy results and breast surgery reports were collected of all women with a positive screening result from any reader. Single radiologist reading (I) resulted in a mean cancer detection rate of 4.64 per 1000 screens (95% confidence intervals (CI)=4.23-5.05) with individual variations from 3.44 (95% CI=2.30-4.58) to 5.04 (95% CI=3.81-6.27), and a sensitivity of 63.9% (95% CI=60.5-67.3), ranging from 51.5% (95% CI=39.6-63.3) to 75.0% (95% CI=65.3-84.7). Sensitivity at non-blinded, radiologist double-reading (II), radiologist double-reading followed by radiologist review of positive cases at radiographer double-reading (III), triple reading by one radiologist and two radiographers with referral of all positive readings (IV) and quadruple reading by two radiologists and two radiographers with referral of all positive readings (V) were as follows: 68.6% (95% CI=65.3-71.9) (II); 73.2% (95% CI=70.1-76.4) (III); 75.2% (95% CI=72.1-78.2) (IV), and 76.9% (95% CI=73.9-79.9) (V). We conclude that screener performance significantly varied at single-reading. Double-reading increased sensitivity by a relative 7.3%. When there is a shortage of screening radiologists, triple reading by one radiologist and two radiographers may replace radiologist double-reading.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.