Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30672161›Full record

ArticleKorean journal of radiology2019

Interpretive Performance and Inter-Observer Agreement on Digital Mammography Test Sets.

Sung Hun Kim, Eun Hye Lee, Jae Kwan Jun, You Me Kim, Yun Woo Chang, Jin Hwa Lee, Hye Won Kim, Eun Jung Choi, Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea (ABCS-K)

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Korean journal of radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

9 authors.

Sung Hun KimDepartment of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-4478-9720
Eun Hye LeeDepartment of Radiology, Soonchunhyang University Hospital Bucheon, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Bucheon, Korea. grace927@hanmail.net.ORCID 0000-0002-8773-700X
Jae Kwan JunNational Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
You Me KimDepartment of Radiology, Dankook University Hospital, Dankook University College of Medicine, Cheonan, Korea.
Yun Woo ChangDepartment of Radiology, Soonchunhyang University Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jin Hwa LeeDepartment of Radiology, Dong-A University Hospital, Busan, Korea.
Hye Won KimDepartment of Radiology, Wonkwang University Hospital, Wonkwang University School of Medicine, Iksan, Korea.
Eun Jung ChoiDepartment of Radiology, Chonbuk National University Hospital, Jeonju, Korea.
Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea (ABCS-K)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the interpretive performance and inter-observer agreement on digital mammographs among radiologists and to investigate whether radiologist characteristics affect performance and agreement. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe test sets consisted of full-field digital mammograms and contained 12 cancer cases among 1000 total cases. Twelve radiologists independently interpreted all mammograms. Performance indicators included the recall rate, cancer detection rate (CDR), positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, specificity, false positive rate (FPR), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Inter-radiologist agreement was measured. The reporting radiologist characteristics included number of years of experience interpreting mammography, fellowship training in breast imaging, and annual volume of mammography interpretation.

resultsThe mean and range of interpretive performance were as follows: recall rate, 7.5% (3.3-10.2%); CDR, 10.6 (8.0-12.0 per 1000 examinations); PPV, 15.9% (8.8-33.3%); sensitivity, 88.2% (66.7-100%); specificity, 93.5% (90.6-97.8%); FPR, 6.5% (2.2-9.4%); and AUC, 0.93 (0.82-0.99). Radiologists who annually interpreted more than 3000 screening mammograms tended to exhibit higher CDRs and sensitivities than those who interpreted fewer than 3000 mammograms (

conclusionThe interpretative performance of the radiologists fulfilled the mammography screening goal of the American College of Radiology, although there was inter-observer variability. Radiologists who interpreted more than 3000 screening mammograms annually tended to perform better than radiologists who did not.

Indexed as

AgedBreast NeoplasmsClinical CompetenceEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedObserver VariationRadiologistsROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityMedical auditObserver variationRadiologistsScreeningSensitivity and specificity

Identifiers

PMID30672161
PMCPMC6342756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.