Do Reader Characteristics Affect Diagnostic Efficacy in Screening Mammography? A Systematic Review.

Autor: Wong DJ; Medical Image Optimisation and Perception Group (MIOPeG), Discipline of Medical Imaging Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia., Gandomkar Z; Medical Image Optimisation and Perception Group (MIOPeG), Discipline of Medical Imaging Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia., Lewis S; Medical Image Optimisation and Perception Group (MIOPeG), Discipline of Medical Imaging Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia., Reed W; Medical Image Optimisation and Perception Group (MIOPeG), Discipline of Medical Imaging Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia., Suleiman M; Medical Image Optimisation and Perception Group (MIOPeG), Discipline of Medical Imaging Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia., Siviengphanom S; Medical Image Optimisation and Perception Group (MIOPeG), Discipline of Medical Imaging Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia., Ekpo E; Medical Image Optimisation and Perception Group (MIOPeG), Discipline of Medical Imaging Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. Electronic address: ernest.ekpo@sydney.edu.au.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Clinical breast cancer [Clin Breast Cancer] 2023 Apr; Vol. 23 (3), pp. e56-e67. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Jan 26.
DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2023.01.009
Abstrakt: To examine reader characteristics associated with diagnostic efficacy in the interpretation of screening mammograms. A systematic search of the literature was conducted using databases such as Cochrane, Scopus, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed. Search terms were combined with "AND" or "OR" and included: "Radiologist's characteristics AND performance"; "radiologist experience AND screening mammography"; "annual volume read AND diagnostic efficacy"; "screening mammography performance OR diagnostic efficacy". Studies were included if they assessed reader performance in screening mammography interpretation, breast readers, used a reference standard to assess the performance, and were published in the English language. Twenty-eight studies were reviewed. Increasing reader's age was associated with lower false positive rates. No association was found between gender and performance. Half of the studies showed no association between years of reading mammograms and performance. Most studies showed that high reading volume was more likely to be associated with increased sensitivity, cancer detection rates (CDR), lower recall rate, and lower false positive rates. Inconsistent associations were found between fellowship training in breast imaging and reader performance. Specialization in breast imaging was associated with better CDR, sensitivity, and specificity. Limited studies were available to establish the association between performance and factors such as time spent in breast imaging (n = 2), screening focus (n = 1), formal rotation in mammography (n = 1), owner of practice (n = 1), and practice type (n = 1). No individual characteristics is associated with versatility in diagnostic efficacy, albeit reading volume and specialization in breast imaging appear to be associated with with increased sensitivity and CDR without significantly affecting other performance metrics.
Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have stated that they have no conflicts of interest.
(Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: