| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1
Center for Health Studies, Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, P. O. Box
34021, Seattle, WA 98124-1448.
2
Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Box 356390, Seattle,
WA 98195.
3
Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, 1730 Minor Ave., Ste. 160, Seattle WA
98101.
4
Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Box 356420, Seattle, WA
98195.
5
Department of Radiology, Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, 209 Martin
luther King Jr. Way, Tacoma, WA 98405.
6
Joyce Einsenberg Keefer Breast Center, Saint John's Hospital, 1328 - 22nd St.,
Santa Monica, CA 90404.
OBJECTIVE. We conducted an analysis among 31 community radiologists to identify the average change in screening mammography interpretive accuracy afforded by independent double interpretation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. We assessed interpretive accuracy using a stratified random sample of test mammograms that included 30 women with cancer and 83 without. Radiologists were unaware of clinical information and of each other's assessments. We describe accuracy for individual radiologists and for double interpretation, including average sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic likelihood ratios positive and negative, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. We also assessed weighted and nonweighted kappa statistics among all 465 pairs of radiologists and 31,465 pairs of unique pairs. The assessment for double interpretations used the "highest" (i.e., most abnormal) assessment of the two radiologists. We calculated the difference between each radiologist's individual accuracy and the average accuracy across that radiologist's 30 double interpretations.
RESULTS. We found the following average accuracy statistics for individual radiologists: sensitivity, 79%; specificity, 81%; diagnostic likelihood ratio positive, 5.53; diagnostic likelihood ratio negative, 0.26; and area under the ROC curve, 0.85. The mean kappa statistic among radiologists for cancer cases increased with double interpretation from 0.59 to 0.70, and for noncancer cases from 0.30 to 0.34. Double interpretation resulted in an average increase in sensitivity of 7%, an average decrease in specificity of 11%, a decrease in diagnostic likelihood ratio positive of 2.35, a decrease in diagnostic likelihood ratio negative of 0.06, and an increase in area under the ROC curve of 0.02.
CONCLUSION. Independent double interpretation does not increase accuracy as measured by the area under the ROC curve.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Hofvind, B. M. Geller, R. D. Rosenberg, and P. Skaane Screening-detected Breast Cancers: Discordant Independent Double Reading in a Population-based Screening Program Radiology, September 29, 2009; (2009) radiol.2533090210v1. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Hofvind, B. C Yankaskas, J.-L. Bulliard, C. N Klabunde, and J. Fracheboud Comparing interval breast cancer rates in Norway and North Carolina: results and challenges J Med Screen, September 1, 2009; 16(3): 131 - 139. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. Georgian-Smith, R. H. Moore, E. Halpern, E. D. Yeh, E. A. Rafferty, H. A. D'Alessandro, M. Staffa, D. A. Hall, K. A. McCarthy, and D. B. Kopans Blinded Comparison of Computer-Aided Detection with Human Second Reading in Screening Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2007; 189(5): 1135 - 1141. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. G. Elmore and R. J. Brenner The More Eyes, the Better to See? From Double to Quadruple Reading of Screening Mammograms J Natl Cancer Inst, August 1, 2007; 99(15): 1141 - 1143. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. E. Hendrick, G. R. Cutter, E. A. Berns, C. Nakano, J. Egger, P. A. Carney, L. Abraham, S. H. Taplin, C. J. D'Orsi, W. Barlow, et al. Community-Based Mammography Practice: Services, Charges, and Interpretation Methods Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2005; 184(2): 433 - 438. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. L. Kundel and M. Polansky Measurement of Observer Agreement Radiology, August 1, 2003; 228(2): 303 - 308. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. C. Harvey, B. Geller, R. G. Oppenheimer, M. Pinet, L. Riddell, and B. Garra Increase in Cancer Detection and Recall Rates with Independent Double Interpretation of Screening Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2003; 180(5): 1461 - 1467. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Karssemeijer, J. D. M. Otten, A. L. M. Verbeek, J. H. Groenewoud, H. J. de Koning, J. H. C. L. Hendriks, and R. Holland Computer-aided Detection versus Independent Double Reading of Masses on Mammograms Radiology, April 1, 2003; 227(1): 192 - 200. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. B. Cole, E. D. Pisano, E. O. Kistner, K. E. Muller, M. E. Brown, S. A. Feig, R. A. Jong, A. D. A. Maidment, M. J. Staiger, C. M. Kuzmiak, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Mammography in Patients with Dense Breasts Who Underwent Problem-solving Mammography: Effects of Image Processing and Lesion Type Radiology, January 1, 2003; 226(1): 153 - 160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
