Trial reportAJR. American journal of roentgenology2012
Association between time spent interpreting, level of confidence, and accuracy of screening mammography.
Trial report in AJR. American journal of roentgenology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Educational interventions to improve screening mammography interpretation: a randomized controlled trial.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2014Trial
- Feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomized clinical trial designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography.Academic radiology · 2013Trial
- Is confidence of mammographic assessment a good predictor of accuracy?AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2012Trial
- The Accuracy and confidence in human dental identification using panoramic radiographs: the role of observer experience.The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the impact of a novel denoising algorithm on image quality in dual-energy abdominal CT of obese patients.European radiology · 2023Article
- How experts' own inconsistency relates to their confidence and between-expert disagreement.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Article
- Improving radiologist's ability in identifying particular abnormal lesions on mammograms through training test set with immediate feedback.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- How to detect high-performing individuals and groups: Decision similarity predicts accuracy.Science advances · 2019Article
- Correlation Between Screening Mammography Interpretive Performance on a Test Set and Performance in Clinical Practice.Academic radiology · 2017Article
- Boosting medical diagnostics by pooling independent judgments.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2016Article
- Collective intelligence meets medical decision-making: the collective outperforms the best radiologist.PloS one · 2015Article
- Experiences with a self-test for Dutch breast screening radiologists: lessons learnt.European radiology · 2014Article
- Establishing a gold standard for test sets: variation in interpretive agreement of expert mammographers.Academic radiology · 2013Article
- Radiologist agreement for mammographic recall by case difficulty and finding type.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 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
11 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe 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
methodsRadiologists 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.
resultsOne 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.
conclusionLonger interpretation times and higher levels of confidence in an interpretation are both associated with higher sensitivity and false-positive rates in mammography screening.
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.