ArticleBMC health services research2011
Is computer aided detection (CAD) cost effective in screening mammography? A model based on the CADET II study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is single reading with computer-aided detection (CAD) as good as double reading in mammography screening? A systematic review.BMC medical imaging · 2012Pooled it
- [Influence of artificial intelligence on decisions in radiology using the example of lung cancer screening].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Traditional versus modern approaches to screening mammography: a comparison of computer-assisted detection for synthetic 2D mammography versus an artificial intelligence algorithm for digital breast tomosynthesis.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- The message matters: changes to binary Computer Aided Detection recommendations affect cancer detection in low prevalence search.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- New Frontiers in Breast Cancer Imaging: The Rise of AI.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Framing the fallibility of Computer-Aided Detection aids cancer detection.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2023Article
- Vision-Transformer-Based Transfer Learning for Mammogram Classification.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The optimal use of computer aided detection to find low prevalence cancers.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2022Article
- A review of the current state of the computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems for breast cancer diagnosis.Open life sciences · 2022Review
- Artificial Intelligence for Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Current Concepts and Future Perspectives.Radiology · 2019Review
- Computer-Aided Detection for Breast Cancer Screening in Clinical Settings: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2019Article
- Usefulness of grayscale inverted images in addition to standard images in digital mammography.BMC medical imaging · 2017Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Double Reading versus Single Reading of Mammograms in a Breast Cancer Screening Programme.PloS one · 2016Article
- CAD May Not be Necessary for Microcalcifications in the Digital era, CAD May Benefit Radiologists for Masses.Journal of clinical imaging science · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSingle reading with computer aided detection (CAD) is an alternative to double reading for detecting cancer in screening mammograms. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the use of a single reader with CAD is more cost-effective than double reading.
methodsBased on data from the CADET II study, the cost-effectiveness of single reading with CAD versus double reading was measured in terms of cost per cancer detected. Cost (Pound (£), year 2007/08) of single reading with CAD versus double reading was estimated assuming a health and social service perspective and a 7 year time horizon. As the equipment cost varies according to the unit size a separate analysis was conducted for high, average and low volume screening units. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed by varying the reading time, equipment and assessment cost, recall rate and reader qualification.
resultsCAD is cost increasing for all sizes of screening unit. The introduction of CAD is cost-increasing compared to double reading because the cost of CAD equipment, staff training and the higher assessment cost associated with CAD are greater than the saving in reading costs. The introduction of single reading with CAD, in place of double reading, would produce an additional cost of £227 and £253 per 1,000 women screened in high and average volume units respectively. In low volume screening units, the high cost of purchasing the equipment will results in an additional cost of £590 per 1,000 women screened.One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the factors having the greatest effect on the cost-effectiveness of CAD with single reading compared with double reading were the reading time and the reader's professional qualification (radiologist versus advanced practitioner).
conclusionsWithout improvements in CAD effectiveness (e.g. a decrease in the recall rate) CAD is unlikely to be a cost effective alternative to double reading for mammography screening in UK. This study provides updated estimates of CAD costs in a full-field digital system and assessment cost for women who are re-called after initial screening. However, the model is highly sensitive to various parameters e.g. reading time, reader qualification, and equipment cost.
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.