Dual reading in a non-specialized breast cancer screening programme

Breast

Volumn 5, Issue 6, 1996, Pages 398-403

  Seradour B ^a   Wait, S ^b   Jacquemier, J ^c   Dubuc, M ^d  

^a TIMONE HOSPITAL   (France)

^b Institut Paoli Calmettes ^*  (France)

^c INSTITUT PAOLI CALMETTES   (France)

^d AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITY   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; FEMALE; FRANCE; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MAMMOGRAPHY; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIOLOGIST;

EID: 0029751644     PISSN: 09609776     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0960-9776(96)90103-4     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Baines C J, McFarlane D V, Miller A B. The role of the reference radiologist. Estimates of inter-observer agreement and potential delay in cancer detection in the national breast screening study. Investigative Radiol 1990; 25: 971-976.
2. Ciccone G, Vineis P, Frigerio A, Segnan N. Inter-observer and intra-observer variability of mammogram interpretation: a field study. Eur J Cancer 1992; 28A(6-7): 1054-1058.
3. Elmore J G, Wells C K, Lee C H, Howard D H, Feinstein A R. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 1493-1499.
4. Kopans D B. The accuracy of mammographic interpretation (editorial). N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 1521-1522.
5. Anderson E D C, Muir B B, Walsh J S, Kirkpatrick A E. The efficacy of double reading mammograms in breast screening. Clinical Radiology 1994; 49: 248-251.
6. Anttinen I, Pamilo M, Soiva M, Roiha M. Double reading of mammography screening films - one radiologist or two? Clinical Radiology 1993; 48: 414-421.
7. Thurfjell E L, Lernevall K A, Taube A A. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiol 1994; 191: 241-244.
8. Thurfjell E. Mammography screening. One versus two views and independent double reading. Acta Radiol 1994; 35: 345-350.
9. Bird R E. Professional quality assurance for mammography screening programmes. Radiol 1990; 177: 587.
10. Lancry P J, Wait S. Evaluation économique des dépistages de masse du cancer du sein. A propos de cinq programs expérimentaux français. (Economic analysis of breast cancer screening: an analysis of 5 French pilot projects). Paris: CREDES Report No 997, 1993.
11. Feinstein A R, Cicchetti D V. High agreement but low kappa.I. The problems of two paradoxes. II. Resolving the paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990; 43: 543-558.
12. Lidbrink E, Elfving J, Frisell J, Jonsson E. Neglected aspects of false-positive findings in mammography screening. Abstract. Fourth International Cambridge Conference on Breast Cancer Screening. Cambridge, 1995.
13. Lancry P J, Fagnani F. Evaluation économique du dépistage systématique des cancers du sein et du col de l'utérus. Paris: COMAC-HSR, Paris.
14. van Ineveld B M, van Oortmarssen G J, de Koning H J, Boer R, van der Maas P J. How cost-effective is breast cancer screening in different EC countries? Eur J Cancer 1993; 29A(12): 1663-1668.
15. Woodman C B J, Threlfall A G, Boggis C R M, Prior P. Is the three year breast screening interval too long? Occurrence of interval cancers in NHS screening programme's north western region. BMJ 1995; 310: 224-226.