An evaluation of the impact of computer-based prompts on screen readers' interpretation of mamograms

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 77, Issue 913, 2004, Pages 21-27

  Taylor, P M ^a   Champness, J ^a   Given Wilson, R M ^b   Potts, H W W ^a   Johnston, K ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b Duchess of Kent Screening Unit   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; COMPUTER; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVICE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; CUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL STAFF, HOSPITAL; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 1242273856     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/34203805     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Field S. UK Radiologist Workforce Survey-Breast Imaging Service. Royal College of Radiologists Newsletter 1998; 54:12-4.
2. Department of Health. The NHS Plan. London: HMSO, 2000.
3. Department of Health. The NHS Cancer Plan. London: HMSO, 2000.
4. Winsburg F, Elkin M, Macy J, et al. Detection of radiographic abnormalities in mammograms by means of optical scanning and computer analysis. Radiology 1967;89:211-5.
5. Chan H, Doi K, Vyborny C, et al. Improvements in radiologists' detection of clustered microcalcifications in mammograms. The potential of computer-aided diagnosis. Invest Radiol 1990;25:1102.
6. Doi K, MacMahon H, Katsuragawa S, Nishikawa RM, Jiang Y. Computer-aided diagnosis in radiology: potential and pitfalls. Eur J Radiol 1999;31:97-109.
7. Roehrig J, Doi T, Hasegawa A, et al. Clinical results with R2 Imagechecker System. In: Karssemeijer N, Thijssen M, Hendriks J, van Erning L, editors. Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Digital Mammography. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1998;395-400.
8. Castellino R, Roehrig J, Zhang W. Improved computer aided detection (CAD) algorithms for screening mammography. Radiology 2000;217:(P) 400.
9. Warren Burhenne LJ, Wood SA, D'Orsi CJ, Feig SA, Kopans DB, O'Shaughnessy KF, et al. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology 2000;215:554-62.
10. Thurfjell E, Thurfjell G, Egge E, Bjurstam N. Sensitivity and specificity of computer-assisted breast cancer detection in mammography screening. Acta Radiologica 1998;39:384-8.
11. Funovics M, Schamp S, Lackner B, et al. Computer assisted diagnosis in mammography: the R2 Imagechecker in detection of spiculated lesions. Wien Med Wocheschr 1998; 148:321-4.
12. Brem RF, Schoonjans JM. Radiologist detection of microcalcifications with and without computer-aided detection: a comparative study. Clin Radiol 2001;56:150-4.
13. Freer TW, Ulissey MJ. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 2001; 220:781-6.
14. Haiart D, Henderson J. A comparison of interpretation of screening mammograms by a radiographer, a doctor and a radiologist: results and implications. Br J Clin Pract 1991; 45:43-5.
15. Pauli R, Hammond S, Ansell J. Comparison of radiographer/radiologist double film reading with single reading in breast cancer screening. J Med Screen 1996;3:18-22.
16. Cowley H, Gale A, PERFORMS and Mammograpbic Film Reading Performance: Radiographers, Breast Physicians and Radiologists. A report for the Workforce Issues in the Breast Screening Programme Meeting. Inst. of Behavioural Sciences, Univ of Derby, 1999.
17. Taylor C, Given-Wilson R, Reddy M, et al. Reproducibility of prompts in computer aided detection of breast cancer. Proceedings of United Kingdom Radiological Congress 2002. London: BIR, 2002.
18. Reddy M, Given-Wilson R, Taylor C, et al. The performance of computer aided detection in the assessment of interval breast cancer. Proceedings of United Kingdom Radiological Congress 2002. London: BIR, 2002.
19. Hartwood M, Procter R, Rouncefield M, Slack R. Finding order in the machine: computer-aided detection tools in mammography. Proceedings of the DIRC Workshop at Royal Statistical Society Nov 2002.
20. Anscombe FJ. On estimating binomial response relations. Biometrika 1956;43:461-4.
21. Pepe M, Urban N, Rutter C, Longton G. Design of study to improve accuracy of reading mammograms. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;12:1327-38.
22. Destounis S, DiNitto P, Wilson K, et al. Can computer-aidied detection (CAD) decrease the false negative rate of consensus double-read mammography. Radiology 2001;221(P):471.
23. Taylor P. Computer aids for detection and diagnosis in mammography. Imaging 2002;14:472-7.
24. Blanks RG, Wallis MG, Given-Wilson RM. Observer variability in cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographic screening in a study of two versus one view mammography. J Med Screen 1999;6:152-8.
25. Beam CA, Layde M, Sullivan D. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammo-grams by US radiologists: Findings from a national sample. Arch Int Med 1996; 156:209-13.