Cargando…
Is single reading with computer-aided detection (CAD) as good as double reading in mammography screening? A systematic review
BACKGROUND: In accordance with European guidelines, mammography screening comprises independent readings by two breast radiologists (double reading). CAD (computer-aided detection) has been suggested to complement or replace one of the two readers (single reading + CAD). The aim of this systematic r...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3464719/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22827803 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2342-12-22 |
_version_ | 1782245461623570432 |
---|---|
author | Azavedo, Edward Zackrisson, Sophia Mejàre, Ingegerd Heibert Arnlind, Marianne |
author_facet | Azavedo, Edward Zackrisson, Sophia Mejàre, Ingegerd Heibert Arnlind, Marianne |
author_sort | Azavedo, Edward |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: In accordance with European guidelines, mammography screening comprises independent readings by two breast radiologists (double reading). CAD (computer-aided detection) has been suggested to complement or replace one of the two readers (single reading + CAD). The aim of this systematic review is to address the following question: Is the reading of mammographic x-ray images by a single breast radiologist together with CAD at least as accurate as double reading? METHODS: The electronic literature search included the databases Pub Med, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. Two independent reviewers assessed abstracts and full-text articles. RESULTS: 1049 abstracts were identified, of which 996 were excluded with reference to inclusion and exclusion criteria; 53 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Finally, four articles were included in the qualitative analysis, and one in a GRADE synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: The scientific evidence is insufficient to determine whether the accuracy of single reading + CAD is at least equivalent to that obtained in standard practice, i.e. double reading where two breast radiologists independently read the mammographic images. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3464719 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-34647192012-10-05 Is single reading with computer-aided detection (CAD) as good as double reading in mammography screening? A systematic review Azavedo, Edward Zackrisson, Sophia Mejàre, Ingegerd Heibert Arnlind, Marianne BMC Med Imaging Research Article BACKGROUND: In accordance with European guidelines, mammography screening comprises independent readings by two breast radiologists (double reading). CAD (computer-aided detection) has been suggested to complement or replace one of the two readers (single reading + CAD). The aim of this systematic review is to address the following question: Is the reading of mammographic x-ray images by a single breast radiologist together with CAD at least as accurate as double reading? METHODS: The electronic literature search included the databases Pub Med, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. Two independent reviewers assessed abstracts and full-text articles. RESULTS: 1049 abstracts were identified, of which 996 were excluded with reference to inclusion and exclusion criteria; 53 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Finally, four articles were included in the qualitative analysis, and one in a GRADE synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: The scientific evidence is insufficient to determine whether the accuracy of single reading + CAD is at least equivalent to that obtained in standard practice, i.e. double reading where two breast radiologists independently read the mammographic images. BioMed Central 2012-07-24 /pmc/articles/PMC3464719/ /pubmed/22827803 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2342-12-22 Text en Copyright ©2012 Azavedo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Azavedo, Edward Zackrisson, Sophia Mejàre, Ingegerd Heibert Arnlind, Marianne Is single reading with computer-aided detection (CAD) as good as double reading in mammography screening? A systematic review |
title | Is single reading with computer-aided detection (CAD) as good as double reading in mammography screening? A systematic review |
title_full | Is single reading with computer-aided detection (CAD) as good as double reading in mammography screening? A systematic review |
title_fullStr | Is single reading with computer-aided detection (CAD) as good as double reading in mammography screening? A systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Is single reading with computer-aided detection (CAD) as good as double reading in mammography screening? A systematic review |
title_short | Is single reading with computer-aided detection (CAD) as good as double reading in mammography screening? A systematic review |
title_sort | is single reading with computer-aided detection (cad) as good as double reading in mammography screening? a systematic review |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3464719/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22827803 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2342-12-22 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT azavedoedward issinglereadingwithcomputeraideddetectioncadasgoodasdoublereadinginmammographyscreeningasystematicreview AT zackrissonsophia issinglereadingwithcomputeraideddetectioncadasgoodasdoublereadinginmammographyscreeningasystematicreview AT mejareingegerd issinglereadingwithcomputeraideddetectioncadasgoodasdoublereadinginmammographyscreeningasystematicreview AT heibertarnlindmarianne issinglereadingwithcomputeraideddetectioncadasgoodasdoublereadinginmammographyscreeningasystematicreview |