ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2019
Radiologists’ Performance at Reduced Recall Rates in Mammography: A Laboratory Study
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2019. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rationale and objectives: Target recall rates are often used as a performance indicator in mammography screening programs with the intention of reducing false positive decisions, over diagnosis and anxiety for participants. However, the relationship between target recall rates and cancer detection is unclear, especially when readers are directed to adhere to a predetermined rate. The purpose of this study was to explore the effect of setting different recall rates on radiologist’s performance. Materials and Methods: Institutional ethics approval was granted and informed consent was obtained from each participating radiologist. Five experienced breast imaging radiologists read a single test set of 200 mammographic cases (20 abnormal and 180 normal). The radiologists were asked to identify each case that they required to be recalled in three different recall conditions; free recall, 15% and 10% and mark the location of any suspicious lesions. Results: Wide variability in recall rates was observed when reading at free recall, ranging from 18.5% to 34.0%. Readers demonstrated significantly reduced performance when reading at prescribed recall rates, with lower sensitivity (H=12.891, P=0.002), case location sensitivity (H=12.512, P=0.002) and ROC AUC (H=11.601, P=0.003) albeit with an increased specificity (H=12.704, P=0.002). However, no significant changes were evident in lesion location sensitivity (H=1.982, P=0.371) and JAFROC FOM (H=1.820, P=0.403). Conclusion: In this laboratory study, reducing the number of recalled cases to 10% significantly reduced radiologists’ performance with lower detection sensitivity, although a significant improvement in specificity was observed.
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.