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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Azavedo, Edward, Zackrisson, Sophia, Mejàre, Ingegerd, Heibert Arnlind, Marianne
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