Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38263824›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2024

Service and clinical impacts of reader bias in breast cancer screening: a retrospective study.

Clarisse F de Vries, Roger T Staff, Jaroslaw A Dymiter, Moragh Boyle, Lesley A Anderson, Gerald Lip, iCAIRD Radiology Collaboration

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Clarisse F de VriesAberdeen Centre for Health Data Science, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9616-4231
Roger T StaffNational Health Service Grampian (NHSG), Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen AB25 2ZN, United Kingdom.
Jaroslaw A DymiterGrampian Data Safe Haven (DaSH), University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, United Kingdom.
Moragh BoyleAberdeen Centre for Health Data Science, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, United Kingdom.
Lesley A AndersonAberdeen Centre for Health Data Science, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, United Kingdom.
Gerald LipNational Health Service Grampian (NHSG), Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen AB25 2ZN, United Kingdom.
iCAIRD Radiology Collaboration
University of Aberdeen · GBNational Health Service · GB

Funding

Industrial Centre for Artificial Intelligence Research in Digital DiagnosticsUK Research and Innovation 104690
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine factors influencing reader agreement in breast screening and investigate the relationship between agreement level and patient outcomes.

methodsReader pair agreement for 83 265 sets of mammograms from the Scottish Breast Screening service (2015-2020) was evaluated using Cohen's kappa statistic. Each mammography examination was read by two readers, per routine screening practice, with the second initially blinded but able to choose to view the first reader's opinion. If the two readers disagreed, a third reader arbitrated. Variation in reader agreement was examined by: whether the reader acted as the first or second reader, reader experience, and recall, cancer detection and arbitration recall rate.

resultsReaders' opinions varied by whether they acted as the first or second reader. Furthermore, reader 2 was more likely to agree with reader 1 if reader 1 was more experienced than they were, and less likely to agree if they themselves were more experienced than reader 1 (P < .001). Agreement was not significantly associated with cancer detection rate, overall recall rate or arbitration recall rates (P > .05). Lower agreement between readers led to a higher arbiter workload (P < .001).

conclusionsIn mammography screening, the second reader's opinion is influenced by the first reader's opinion, with the degree of influence dependent on the readers' relative experience levels. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: While less-experienced readers relied on their more experienced reading partner, no adverse impact on service outcomes was observed. Allowing access to the first reader's opinion may benefit newly qualified readers, but reduces independent evaluation, which may lower cancer detection rates.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerBreastFemaleHumansMammographyRetrospective Studiesbreast screeningmammographyreader biasreader experience

Identifiers

PMID38263824
PMCPMC11027282
OpenAlexW4390729608

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.