Trial reportAJR. American journal of roentgenology2014
Educational interventions to improve screening mammography interpretation: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in AJR. American journal of roentgenology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomized clinical trial designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography.Academic radiology · 2013Trial
- Does the availability of prior mammograms improve radiologists' observer performance?-a scoping review.BJR open · 2023Article
- Experiences of Women Who Refuse Recall for Further Investigation of Abnormal Screening Mammography: A Qualitative Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Deep learning can be used to train naïve, nonprofessional observers to detect diagnostic visual patterns of certain cancers in mammograms: a proof-of-principle study.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2020Article
- 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
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of our study was to conduct a randomized controlled trial of educational interventions that were created to improve performance of screening mammography interpretation. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe randomly assigned physicians who interpret mammography to one of three groups: self-paced DVD, live expert-led educational seminar, or control. The DVD and seminar interventions used mammography cases of varying difficulty and provided associated teaching points. Interpretive performance was compared using a pretest-posttest design. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated relative to two outcomes: cancer status and consensus of three experts about recall. The performance measures for each group were compared using logistic regression adjusting for pretest performance.
resultsOne hundred two radiologists completed all aspects of the trial. After adjustment for preintervention performance, the odds of improved sensitivity for correctly identifying a lesion relative to expert recall were 1.34 times higher for DVD participants than for control subjects (95% CI, 1.00-1.81; p = 0.050). The odds of an improved PPV for correctly identifying a lesion relative to both expert recall (odds ratio [OR] = 1.94; 95% CI, 1.24-3.05; p = 0.004) and cancer status (OR = 1.81; 95% CI, 1.01-3.23; p = 0.045) were significantly improved for DVD participants compared with control subjects, with no significant change in specificity. For the seminar group, specificity was significantly lower than the control group (OR relative to expert recall = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64-1.00; p = 0.048; OR relative to cancer status = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.95; p = 0.015).
conclusionIn this randomized controlled trial, the DVD educational intervention resulted in a significant improvement in screening mammography interpretive performance on a test set, which could translate into improved interpretative performance in clinical practice.
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.