Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29634439›Full record

ArticleRadiology2018

Double Reading in Breast Cancer Screening: Cohort Evaluation in the CO-OPS Trial.

Sian Taylor-Phillips, David Jenkinson, Chris Stinton, Matthew G Wallis, Janet Dunn, Aileen Clarke

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Modeling Radiologists' Assessments to Explore Pairing Strategies for Optimized Double Reading of Screening Mammograms.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Article
  6. In simple but challenging search tasks, most errors are stochastic.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sian Taylor-PhillipsFrom the Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbett Hill Rd, Coventry CV4 7AL, England (S.T., D.J., C.S., J.D., A.C.); and Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, and National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.).ORCID 0000-0002-1841-4346
David JenkinsonFrom the Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbett Hill Rd, Coventry CV4 7AL, England (S.T., D.J., C.S., J.D., A.C.); and Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, and National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.).
Chris StintonFrom the Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbett Hill Rd, Coventry CV4 7AL, England (S.T., D.J., C.S., J.D., A.C.); and Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, and National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.).
Matthew G WallisFrom the Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbett Hill Rd, Coventry CV4 7AL, England (S.T., D.J., C.S., J.D., A.C.); and Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, and National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.).
Janet DunnFrom the Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbett Hill Rd, Coventry CV4 7AL, England (S.T., D.J., C.S., J.D., A.C.); and Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, and National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.).
Aileen ClarkeFrom the Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibbett Hill Rd, Coventry CV4 7AL, England (S.T., D.J., C.S., J.D., A.C.); and Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, and National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, England (M.G.W.).
National Institute for Health Research · GB

Funding

Department of Health CDF-2016-09-018Department of Health PDF-2011-04-073
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose To investigate the effect of double readings by a second radiologist on recall rates, cancer detection, and characteristics of cancers detected in the National Health Service Breast Screening Program in England. Materials and Methods In this retrospective analysis, 805 206 women were evaluated through screening and diagnostic test results by extracting 1 year of routine data from 33 English breast screening centers. Centers used double reading of digital mammograms, with arbitration if there were discrepant interpretations. Information on reader decisions, with results of follow-up tests, were used to explore the effect of the second reader. The statistical tests used were the test for equality of proportions, the χ

Indexed as

Observer VariationReferral and ConsultationAgedBreastBreast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesEnglandFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID29634439
PMCPMC6071682
OpenAlexW2797962044

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.