Mammography screening: An incremental cost effectiveness analysis of double versus single reading of mammograms

British Medical Journal

Volumn 312, Issue 7034, 1996, Pages 809-812

  Brown, Jackie ^a   Bryan, Stirling ^a   Warren, Ruth ^b  

^a BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b St Margaret's Hospital   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CLINICAL TRIAL; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; SCREENING TEST;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ENGLAND; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOLOGY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 0029876126     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Woodman CBJ, Threlfall AG, Boggis CRM, Prior P. Is the three year breast screening interval too long? Occurrence of interval cancers in NHS breast screening programme's North Western region. BMJ 1995;310:224-6.
2. Day NE. Screening for breast cancer. Br Med Bull 1991;47:400-15.
3. Tahar L, Fagerburg CJG, Gad A, Baldetorp L, Holmberg LH, Grontoff O, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Lancet 1985;i:829-32.
4. Verbeck ALM, Hendricks JHCL, Holland R, Mravunac M, Sturmans F, Day N. Reduction of breast cancer mortality through mass screening with modern mammography. First results of the Nijmegen project, 1975-1981. Lancet 1984;i:1222-4.
5. Anderson I, Aspegren K, Janzon L, Landberg T, Lindholm K, Linell F, et al. Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmo mammographic screening trial. BMJ 1988;297:943-4.
6. Miller AB. The Canadian national trial. In: Miller AB, ed. Screening for breast cancer. Toronto: Hans-Huber, 1988:51-8.
7. Wald NJ, Chamberlain J, Hackshaw A. Report of the European Society for Mastology Breast Cancer Screening Evaluation Committee. The Breast 1993;2:209-16.
8. Working Group. Breast cancer screening. Report to the health ministers of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. London: HMSO, 1986. (Chairman Sir Patrick Forrest.)
9. Anderson ECD, Muir BB, Walsh JS, Kirkpatrick AE. The efficacy of double reading mammograms in breast screening. Clin Radiol 1994;49:248-51.
10. Thurfjell EL, Lernevall KA, Taube AAS. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology 1994;191:241-4.
11. Clarke PR, Fraser NM. Economic analysis of screening for breast cancer. Final report for the Scottish Home and Health Department. Edinburgh: Scottish Home and Health Department, 1990.
12. Gardner MJ, Altman DG, eds. Statistics with confidence. Confidence interval and statistical guidance. London: BMJ Publishing, 1989.
13. Bryan S, Brown J, Warren R. Mammography screening: an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of two-view versus one-view procedures in London. J Epidemiol Community Health 1995;49:70-8.
14. Ashby J, Buxton M, Gravelle H. What costs do women meet for early detection and diagnosis of breast problems? Uxbridge: Brunel University, 1989. (Health Economics Research Group report No 6.)
15. Sculpher MJ, Buxton MJ, Ferguson BA, Spiegelhalter DJ, Kirby AJ. Screening for diabetic retinopathy: a relative cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative modalities and strategies. Health Econ 1092;1:39-51.
16. Bryan S, Buxton M, McKenna M, Ashton H, Scott A. Private costs associated with abdominal aortic aneurysm screening: the importance of travel and time costs. Journal of Medical Screening 1995;2:62-6.
17. Chamberlain J, Moss SM, Kirkpatnck AE, Michell M, Johns L. National Health Service breast screening programme results for 1991-2. BMJ 1993;307:353-6.
18. Warren RML, Duffy SW. Comparison of single reading with double reading of mammograms, and change in effectiveness with experience. Br J Radiol 1995;68:958-62.