Home > DARE Reviews > Computer aids and human second reading...
  • We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet]. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK); 1995-.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews.

Computer aids and human second reading as interventions in screening mammography: two systematic reviews to compare effects on cancer detection and recall rate

Review published: 2008.

Bibliographic details: Taylor P, Potts HW.  Computer aids and human second reading as interventions in screening mammography: two systematic reviews to compare effects on cancer detection and recall rate. European Journal of Cancer 2008; 44(6): 798-807. [PubMed: 18353630]

Quality assessment

This review investigated whether mammogram screening accuracy was improved by double reading or single reading plus computer aids compared with single reading. The authors concluded that there was stronger evidence that double reading with arbitration enhanced screening than that for single reading plus computer aids. The conclusions should be treated with caution, as these two interventions were not directly compared. Full critical summary

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There are two competing methods for improving the accuracy of a radiologist interpreting screening mammograms: computer aids (CAD) or independent second reading.

METHODS: Bibliographic databases were searched for clinical trials. Meta-analyses estimated impacts of CAD and double reading on odds ratios for cancer detection and recall rates. Sub-group analyses considered double reading with arbitration.

RESULTS: Ten studies compared single reading with CAD to single reading. Seventeen compared double to single reading. Double reading increases cancer detection and recall rates. Double reading with arbitration increases detection rate (confidence interval (CI): 1.02, 1.15) and decreases recall rate (CI: 0.92, 0.96). CAD does not have a significant effect on cancer detection rate (CI: 0.96, 1.13) and increases recall rate (95% CI: 1.09, 1.12). However, there is considerable heterogeneity in the impact on recall rate in both sets of studies.

CONCLUSION: The evidence that double reading with arbitration enhances screening is stronger than that for single reading with CAD.

CRD has determined that this article meets the DARE scientific quality criteria for a systematic review.

Copyright © 2014 University of York.

PubMed Health Blog...

read all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...