Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30064917›Full record

ArticleAcademic radiology2019

Benefits of Independent Double Reading in Digital Mammography: A Theoretical Evaluation of All Possible Pairing Methodologies.

Patrick C Brennan, Aarthi Ganesan, Miguel P Eckstein, Ernest Usang Ekpo, Kriscia Tapia, Claudia Mello-Thoms, Sarah Lewis, Mordechai Z Juni

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Academic radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Patrick C BrennanMedical Image Optimisation and Perception Group (MIOPeG), Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, Faculty Research Group, Faculty of Health Sciences, the University of Sydney, Cumberland Campus, 75 East St, Lidcombe, NSW 2141, Australia.
Aarthi GanesanMedical Image Optimisation and Perception Group (MIOPeG), Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, Faculty Research Group, Faculty of Health Sciences, the University of Sydney, Cumberland Campus, 75 East St, Lidcombe, NSW 2141, Australia.
Miguel P EcksteinDepartment of Psychological & Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106; Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106.
Ernest Usang EkpoMedical Image Optimisation and Perception Group (MIOPeG), Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, Faculty Research Group, Faculty of Health Sciences, the University of Sydney, Cumberland Campus, 75 East St, Lidcombe, NSW 2141, Australia. Electronic address: ernest.ekpo@sydney.edu.au.
Kriscia TapiaMedical Image Optimisation and Perception Group (MIOPeG), Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, Faculty Research Group, Faculty of Health Sciences, the University of Sydney, Cumberland Campus, 75 East St, Lidcombe, NSW 2141, Australia.
Claudia Mello-ThomsMedical Image Optimisation and Perception Group (MIOPeG), Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, Faculty Research Group, Faculty of Health Sciences, the University of Sydney, Cumberland Campus, 75 East St, Lidcombe, NSW 2141, Australia.
Sarah LewisMedical Image Optimisation and Perception Group (MIOPeG), Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, Faculty Research Group, Faculty of Health Sciences, the University of Sydney, Cumberland Campus, 75 East St, Lidcombe, NSW 2141, Australia.
Mordechai Z JuniDepartment of Psychological & Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106.

Funding

Visual Search in 3D Medical Imaging ModalitiesR01EB026427 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA · PI Miguel Patricio Eckstein · 2018 to 2026
$2.5M
Assessment of medical image quality with foveated search modelsR01EB018958 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA · PI ECKSTEIN, MIGUEL PATRICIO · 2015 to 2018
$1.7M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB018958NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB026427
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

RATIONALE AND

objectivesTo establish the efficacy of pairing readers randomly and evaluate the merits of developing optimal pairing methodologies. MATERIALS AND

methodsSensitivity, specificity, and proportion correct were computed for three different case sets that were independently read by 16 radiologists. Performance of radiologists as single readers was compared to expected double reading performance. We theoretically evaluated all possible pairing methodologies. Bootstrap resampling methods were used for statistical analyses.

resultsSignificant improvements in expected performance for double versus single reading (ie, delta performance) were shown for all performance measures and case-sets (p ≤ .003), with overall delta performance across all theoretically possible pairing schemes (n = 10,395) ranging between .05 and .08. Delta performance for the 20 best pairing schemes was significant (p < .001) and ranged between .07 and .10. Delta performance for 20 random pairing schemes was also significant (p ≤ .003) and ranged between .05 and .08. Delta performance for the 20 worst pairing schemes ranged between .03 and .06, reaching significance in delta proportion correct (p ≤ .021) for all three case-sets and in delta specificity for two case-sets (p ≤ .033) but not for a third case-set (p = .131), and not reaching significance in delta sensitivity for any of the three case-sets (.098 ≥ p ≥ .067).

conclusionSignificant benefits accrue from double reading, and while random reader pairing achieves most double reading benefits, a strategic pairing approach may maximize the benefits of double reading.

Indexed as

BreastBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMammographyMiddle AgedObserver VariationRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedRadiologistsSensitivity and SpecificityBreast cancerDigital mammographyDouble readingObserver variationRadiologists

Identifiers

PMID30064917
PMCPMC7184882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.