Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Observer variation in the interpretation of xeromammograms.

Authors: N F, Boyd; C, Wolfson; M, Moskowitz; T, Carlile; M, Petitclerc; H A, Ferri; E, Fishell; +5 Authors

Observer variation in the interpretation of xeromammograms.

Abstract

We have examined variation in the interpretation of xeromammograms among radiologists designated to take part in a Canadian multicenter randomized controlled trial of screening for breast cancer. Radiologists read 100 xeromammograms comprising 10 histologically proved cancers, 40 benign abnormalities, and 50 normal films. Radiologists' opinions differed widely on the frequency of suspected or identified cancer. The diagnostic category "suspicion of cancer" or "cancer" was selected by radiologists for 10-55% of the films, and biopsy or aspiration was recommended for 21 to 53% of patients whose films were examined. Agreement on specific diagnostic categories was greatest for the diagnosis of cancer; agreement was least for the diagnosis of benign abnormalities and intermediate for the diagnosis of normality. Known cancers were in general correctly identified. These results indicate a need for development of methods to reduce observer variation in a interpretation of xeromammograms while preserving diagnostic sensitivity and validity. Results also emphasize the importance of developing strategies to ensure quality control in multicenter trials.

Keywords

Clinical Trials as Topic, Decision Making, Statistics as Topic, Visual Acuity, Breast Neoplasms, Xeromammography, Random Allocation, Humans, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Mammography

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    42
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 1%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
42
Top 10%
Top 1%
Average
Related to Research communities
Cancer Research
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!