ArticleEuropean radiology2014
Experiences with a self-test for Dutch breast screening radiologists: lessons learnt.
Article in European radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A machine learning model based on readers' characteristics to predict their performances in reading screening mammograms.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2022Article
- Mammography self-evaluation online test for screening readers: an Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) initiative.European radiology · 2022Article
- Breast cancers missed by screening radiologists can be detected by reading mammograms at a distance.Irish journal of medical science · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate a self-test for Dutch breast screening radiologists introduced as part of the national quality assurance programme. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 144 radiologists were invited to complete a test-set of 60 screening mammograms (20 malignancies). Participants assigned findings such as location, lesion type and BI-RADS. We determined areas under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves (AUC), case and lesion sensitivity and specificity, agreement (kappa) and correlation between reader characteristics and case sensitivity (Spearman correlation coefficients).
resultsA total of 110 radiologists completed the test (76%). Participants read a median number of 10,000 screening mammograms/year. Median AUC value was 0.93, case and lesion sensitivity was 91% and case specificity 94%. We found substantial agreement for recall (κ = 0.77) and laterality (κ = 0.80), moderate agreement for lesion type (κ = 0.57) and BI-RADS (κ = 0.45) and no correlation between case sensitivity and reader characteristics.
conclusionAreas under the ROC curve, case sensitivity and lesion sensitivity were satisfactory and recall agreement was substantial. However, agreement in lesion type and BI-RADS could be improved; further education might be aimed at reducing interobserver variation in interpretation and description of abnormalities. We offered individual feedback on interpretive performance and overall feedback at group level. Future research will determine whether performance has improved. KEY POINTS: • We introduced and evaluated a self-test for Dutch breast screening radiologists. • ROC curves, case and lesion sensitivity and recall agreement were all satisfactory. • Agreement in BI-RADS interpretation and description of abnormalities could be improved. • These are areas that should be targeted with further education and training. • We offered individual feedback on interpretative performance and overall group feedback.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24057201What 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.