Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1996
Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of double versus single reading of mammograms.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Technical aspects of breast MRI--do they affect outcomes?European radiology · 2009Pooled it
- Patient costs in anticoagulation management: a comparison of primary and secondary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2001Trial
- Effects of blinded and nonblinded sequential human redundancy on inspection effort and inspection outcome in low prevalence visual search.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Errors in Radiology: A Standard Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Optimising breast cancer screening reading: blinding the second reader to the first reader's decisions.European radiology · 2022Observational
- Sustainability of paediatric radiology in Italy.Pediatric radiology · 2021Review
- Double reading in breast cancer screening: considerations for policy-making.The British journal of radiology · 2020Review
- Article
- Article
- Double versus single reading of mammograms in a breast cancer screening programme: a cost-consequence analysis.European radiology · 2016Article
- Discrepant screening mammography assessments at blinded and non-blinded double reading: impact of arbitration by a third reader on screening outcome.European radiology · 2015Article
- Variations in screening outcome among pairs of screening radiologists at non-blinded double reading of screening mammograms: a population-based study.European radiology · 2014Article
- Standalone computer-aided detection compared to radiologists' performance for the detection of mammographic masses.European radiology · 2013Article
- Performance of computer-aided detection of pulmonary nodules in low-dose CT: comparison with double reading by nodule volume.European radiology · 2012Article
- Discovering mammography-based machine learning classifiers for breast cancer diagnosis.Journal of medical systems · 2012Article
- Interpretation errors in CT angiography of the head and neck and the benefit of double reading.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2011Article
- Comparing the accuracy of initial head CT reporting by radiologists, radiology trainees, neuroradiographers and emergency doctors.The British journal of radiology · 2011Article
- Radiologists' perceptions of computer aided detection versus double reading for mammography interpretation.Academic radiology · 2010Article
- Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome.British journal of cancer · 2009Article
- Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare mammography reading by one radiologist with independent reading by two radiologists.
designAn observational non-randomised trial at St Margaret's Hospital, Epping. SUBJECTS: 33 734 consecutive attenders for breast screening in the main trial and a sample of 132 attenders for assessment who provided data on private costs.
interventionsThree reporting policies were compared: single reading, consensus double reading, and non-consensus double reading.
main outcome measuresNumbers of cancers detected, recall rates, screening and assessment costs, and cost effectiveness ratios.
resultsA policy of double reading followed by consensus detected an additional nine cancers per 10 000 women screened (95% confidence interval 5 to 13) compared with single reading. A non-consensus double reading policy detected an additional 10 cancers per 10 000 women screened (95% confidence interval 6 to 14). The difference in numbers of cancers detected between the consensus and non-consensus double reading policies was not significant (95% confidence interval -0.2 to 2.2). The proportion of women recalled for assessment after consensus double reading was significantly lower than after single reading (difference 2.7%; 95% confidence interval 2.4% to 3.0%). The recall rate with the non-consensus policy was significantly higher than with single reading (difference 3.0%; 2.5% to 3.5%). Consensus double reading cost less than single reading (saving 4853 pounds per 10 000 women screened). Non-consensus double reading cost more than single reading (difference 19 259 pounds per 10 000 women screened).
conclusionsIn the screening unit studied a consensus double reading policy was more effective and less costly than a single reading policy.
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.