首页> 外文OA文献 >Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome
【2h】

Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome

机译:乳房X光检查筛查中观察者间的差异以及读者类型和人数对筛查结果的影响

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

We prospectively determined the variability in radiologists' interpretation of screening mammograms and assessed the influence of type and number of readers on screening outcome. Twenty-one screening mammography radiographers and eight screening radiologists participated. A total of 106 093 screening mammograms were double-read by two radiographers and, in turn, by two radiologists. Initially, radiologists were blinded to the referral opinion of the radiographers. A woman was referred if she was considered positive at radiologist double-reading with consensus interpretation or referred after radiologist review of positive cases at radiographer double-reading. During 2-year follow-up, clinical data, breast imaging reports, biopsy results and breast surgery reports were collected of all women with a positive screening result from any reader. Single radiologist reading (I) resulted in a mean cancer detection rate of 4.64 per 1000 screens (95% confidence intervals (CI)=4.23–5.05) with individual variations from 3.44 (95% CI=2.30–4.58) to 5.04 (95% CI=3.81–6.27), and a sensitivity of 63.9% (95% CI=60.5–67.3), ranging from 51.5% (95% CI=39.6–63.3) to 75.0% (95% CI=65.3–84.7). Sensitivity at non-blinded, radiologist double-reading (II), radiologist double-reading followed by radiologist review of positive cases at radiographer double-reading (III), triple reading by one radiologist and two radiographers with referral of all positive readings (IV) and quadruple reading by two radiologists and two radiographers with referral of all positive readings (V) were as follows: 68.6% (95% CI=65.3–71.9) (II); 73.2% (95% CI=70.1–76.4) (III); 75.2% (95% CI=72.1–78.2) (IV), and 76.9% (95% CI=73.9–79.9) (V). We conclude that screener performance significantly varied at single-reading. Double-reading increased sensitivity by a relative 7.3%. When there is a shortage of screening radiologists, triple reading by one radiologist and two radiographers may replace radiologist double-reading.
机译:我们前瞻性地确定了放射科医生对筛查乳房X线照片的解释的可变性,并评估了读者类型和人数对筛查结果的影响。二十一名乳房X线检查放射线照相技师和八名放射线检查放射线医师参加了会议。两名放射线照相师和两名放射线医生对106幅影像学检查的X线摄影X线照片进行了两次复读。最初,放射科医生对放射线师的推荐意见视而不见。如果一名妇女在放射线医师复读中被一致认可解释为阳性,或者在放射线医师对放射线医师复读的阳性病例进行复习后被推荐,则该女性被​​转诊。在2年的随访中,收集了所有妇女的临床数据,乳腺影像学报告,活检结果和乳腺手术报告,所有读者的筛查结果均为阳性。放射线医师单次阅读(I)得出的平均癌症检出率为每1000个屏幕4.64个(95%置信区间(CI)= 4.23–5.05),且个体差异从3.44(95%CI = 2.30–4.58)到5.04(95%) CI = 3.81-6.27),灵敏度为63.9%(95%CI = 60.5-66.3),范围从51.5%(95%CI = 39.6-63.3)到75.0%(95%CI = 65.3-84.7)。非盲法,放射线医师双读(II),放射线医师双读,随后放射线医师在放射线照相师双读时对阳性病例进行复查(III),一名放射线医师和两名放射线照相师三重阅读并转介所有阳性读数(IV ),由两名放射线医师和两名放射线照相师进行四重读数,并转介所有阳性读数(V):68.6%(95%CI = 65.3–71.9)(II); 73.2%(95%CI = 70.1-76.4)(III); 75.2%(95%CI = 72.1-78.2)(IV)和76.9%(95%CI = 73.9-79.9)(V)。我们得出的结论是,单次阅读时,筛选器的性能显着不同。双重阅读使灵敏度提高了7.3%。当缺乏放射线筛查人员时,一名放射线医生和两名放射线照相师的三重读数可能会取代放射线医生的双重读数。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号