ArticleThe British journal of radiology2017
Interpretation of digital breast tomosynthesis: preliminary study on comparison with picture archiving and communication system (PACS) and dedicated workstation.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the diagnostic accuracy and efficiency in the interpretation of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images using a picture archiving and communication system (PACS) and a dedicated workstation.
methods97 DBT images obtained for screening or diagnostic purposes were stored in both a workstation and a PACS and evaluated in combination with digital mammography by three independent radiologists retrospectively. Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System final assessments and likelihood of malignancy (%) were assigned and the interpretation time when using the workstation and PACS was recorded. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, sensitivities and specificities were compared with histopathological examination and follow-up data as a reference standard.
resultsArea under the receiver operating characteristic curve values for cancer detection (0.839 vs 0.815, p = 0.6375) and sensitivity (81.8% vs 75.8%, p = 0.2188) showed no statistically significant differences between the workstation and PACS. However, specificity was significantly higher when analysing on the workstation than when using PACS (83.7% vs 76.9%, p = 0.009). When evaluating DBT images using PACS, only one case was deemed necessary to be reanalysed using the workstation. The mean time to interpret DBT images on PACS (1.68 min/case) was significantly longer than that to interpret on the workstation (1.35 min/case) (p < 0.0001).
conclusionInterpretation of DBT images using PACS showed comparable diagnostic performance to a dedicated workstation, even though it required a longer reading time. Advances in knowledge: Interpretation of DBT images using PACS is an alternative to evaluate the images when a dedicated workstation is not available.
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.