SynthesisBMC medical imaging2012
Is single reading with computer-aided detection (CAD) as good as double reading in mammography screening? A systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC medical imaging, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neoadjuvant chemotherapy of breast cancer with pirarubicin versus epirubicin in combination with cyclophosphamide and docetaxel.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2015Trial
- Mammographic quantitative image analysis and biologic image composition for breast lesion characterization and classification.Medical physics · 2014Trial
- X-Pruning: a dual-stream information fusion mammography diagnosis network based on pruned transformer and cross-attention mechanism.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Detection of breast cancer in digital breast tomosynthesis with vision transformers.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Framing the fallibility of Computer-Aided Detection aids cancer detection.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2023Article
- Review
- The optimal use of computer aided detection to find low prevalence cancers.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2022Article
- Development and validation of a deep learning model for detection of breast cancers in mammography from multi-institutional datasets.PloS one · 2022Article
- Clinical applications of artificial intelligence and machine learning in cancer diagnosis: looking into the future.Cancer cell international · 2021Review
- WHAT CAN WE ACTUALLY SEE USING COMPUTER AIDED DETECTION IN MAMMOGRAPHY?Acta clinica Croatica · 2020Article
- Myths and facts about artificial intelligence: why machine- and deep-learning will not replace interventional radiologists.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2020Review
- A machine learning approach on multiscale texture analysis for breast microcalcification diagnosis.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Benefits of Independent Double Reading in Digital Mammography: A Theoretical Evaluation of All Possible Pairing Methodologies.Academic radiology · 2019Article
- A new approach for detecting abnormalities in mammograms using a computer-aided windowing system based on Otsu's method.Radiological physics and technology · 2019Article
- Digital Analysis in Breast Imaging.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Characteristics of screen-detected cancers following concordant or discordant recalls at blinded double reading in biennial digital screening mammography.European radiology · 2019Article
- Deep neural network improves fracture detection by clinicians.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Article
- Artificial intelligence in medical imaging: threat or opportunity? Radiologists again at the forefront of innovation in medicine.European radiology experimental · 2018Review
- Artificial intelligence as a medical device in radiology: ethical and regulatory issues in Europe and the United States.Insights into imaging · 2018Review
- Usefulness of grayscale inverted images in addition to standard images in digital mammography.BMC medical imaging · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn accordance with European guidelines, mammography screening comprises independent readings by two breast radiologists (double reading). CAD (computer-aided detection) has been suggested to complement or replace one of the two readers (single reading + CAD).The aim of this systematic review is to address the following question: Is the reading of mammographic x-ray images by a single breast radiologist together with CAD at least as accurate as double reading?
methodsThe electronic literature search included the databases Pub Med, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. Two independent reviewers assessed abstracts and full-text articles.
results1049 abstracts were identified, of which 996 were excluded with reference to inclusion and exclusion criteria; 53 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Finally, four articles were included in the qualitative analysis, and one in a GRADE synthesis.
conclusionsThe scientific evidence is insufficient to determine whether the accuracy of single reading + CAD is at least equivalent to that obtained in standard practice, i.e. double reading where two breast radiologists independently read the mammographic images.
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.