Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26229663›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2015

Evaluation of radiographers' mammography screen-reading accuracy in Australia.

Josephine C Debono, Ann E Poulos, Nehmat Houssami, Robin M Turner, John Boyages

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Errors in Mammography Cannot be Solved Through Technology AloneAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2018
    Review
  6. Audit of mammography requests in Abakaliki, South-East Nigeria.World journal of surgical oncology · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Josephine C DebonoWestmead Breast Cancer Institute Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
Ann E PoulosDiscipline of Medical Radiation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney Lidcombe, New South Wales, Australia.
Nehmat HoussamiScreening and Test Evaluation Program, School of Public Health (A27), Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Robin M TurnerSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
John BoyagesMacquarie University Cancer Institute, Macquarie University Hospital, Australian School of Advanced Medicine, Macquarie University Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of radiographers' screen-reading mammograms. Currently, radiologist workforce shortages may be compromising the BreastScreen Australia screening program goal to detect early breast cancer. The solution to a similar problem in the United Kingdom has successfully encouraged radiographers to take on the role as one of two screen-readers. Prior to consideration of this strategy in Australia, educational and experiential differences between radiographers in the United Kingdom and Australia emphasise the need for an investigation of Australian radiographers' screen-reading accuracy.

methodsTen radiographers employed by the Westmead Breast Cancer Institute with a range of radiographic (median = 28 years), mammographic (median = 13 years) and BreastScreen (median = 8 years) experience were recruited to blindly and independently screen-read an image test set of 500 mammograms, without formal training. The radiographers indicated the presence of an abnormality using BI-RADS®. Accuracy was determined by comparison with the gold standard of known outcomes of pathology results, interval matching and client 6-year follow-up.

resultsIndividual sensitivity and specificity levels ranged between 76.0% and 92.0%, and 74.8% and 96.2% respectively. Pooled screen-reader accuracy across the radiographers estimated sensitivity as 82.2% and specificity as 89.5%. Areas under the reading operating characteristic curve ranged between 0.842 and 0.923.

conclusionsThis sample of radiographers in an Australian setting have adequate accuracy levels when screen-reading mammograms. It is expected that with formal screen-reading training, accuracy levels will improve, and with support, radiographers have the potential to be one of the two screen-readers in the BreastScreen Australia program, contributing to timeliness and improved program outcomes.

Indexed as

Accuracyimage interpretationmammogramradiographerscreen-reading

Identifiers

PMID26229663
PMCPMC4364802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.