ArticleBritish journal of cancer2018
Impact of the second reader on screening outcome at blinded double reading of digital screening mammograms.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward Reliable Lesion Labeling Standards for AI in Nuclear Medicine.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2026Article
- Enhancing Diagnostic Precision in Breast Cancer Detection: A Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Workshop Approach for Clinicians in the Southeast Asian Population.Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Human-AI interaction in a cancer-enriched double-reading breast screening cohort: diagnostic accuracy and second-reader behavior.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026Article
- Regarding Gampenrieder et al., A comparison of breast cancer incidence and cancer stages before and after the introduction of the Austrian national breast cancer screening program in the federal state of Salzburg.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2025Article
- Interhospital variations in diagnostic work-up following recall at biennial screening mammography-a population-based study.European radiology · 2025Article
- Review
- Video Clip Extraction From Fetal Ultrasound Scans Using Artificial Intelligence to Allow Remote Second Expert Review for Congenital Heart Disease.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Recommendations for Additional Imaging on Head and Neck Imaging Examinations: Interradiologist Variation and Associated Factors.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2024Article
- Article
- End-to-End Calcification Distribution Pattern Recognition for Mammograms: An Interpretable Approach with GNN.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Breast Cancer Mammograms Classification Using Deep Neural Network and Entropy-Controlled Whale Optimization Algorithm.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Optimising breast cancer screening reading: blinding the second reader to the first reader's decisions.European radiology · 2022Observational
- The Impact of Preoperative Breast MRI on Surgical Margin Status in Breast Cancer Patients Recalled at Biennial Screening Mammography: An Observational Cohort Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2021Observational
- Double reading in breast cancer screening: considerations for policy-making.The British journal of radiology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo determine the impact of the second reader on screening outcome at blinded double reading of digital screening mammograms.
methodsWe included a consecutive series of 99,013 digital screening mammograms, obtained between July 2013 and January 2015 and double read in a blinded fashion. During 2-year follow-up, we collected radiology, surgery and pathology reports of recalled women.
resultsSingle reading resulted in 2928 recalls and 616 screen-detected cancers (SDCs). The second reader recalled another 612 women, resulting in 82 additional SDCs. Addition of the second reader increased the recall rate (3.0% to 3.6%, p < 0.001), cancer detection rate (6.2-7.0 per 1000 screens, p < 0.001) and false positive recall rate (24.4-28.7 per 1000 screens, p < 0.001). Positive predictive value of recall (21.0% vs. 19.7%, p = 0.20) and of biopsy (52.1% vs. 50.9%, p = 0.56) were comparable for single reading and blinded double reading. Tumour characteristics were comparable for cancers detected by the first reader and cancers additionally detected by the second reader, except of a more favourable tumour grade in the latter group.
conclusionsAt blinded double reading, the second reader significantly increases the cancer detection rate, at the expense of an increased recall rate and false positive recall rate.
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.