Performance differences across the Atlantic when UK and USA radiologists read the same set of test screening cases

Chen, Yan; Gale, Alastair G.; Evanoff, Michael G.

doi:10.1117/12.913609

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The cases are reported by each person and appropriate feedback is provided. In the previous comparative study 12 a set of PERFORMS cases were also examined by each US participant at the American Board of Radiology meeting in Louisville in 2011. With the unsuccessful attempt to acquire clinical mammographic workstations on that occasion, the participants interpreted the cases using PCs running dual 20" DICOM calibrated monitors.…”

Section: Previous Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previously we have compared how individuals from the UK and US have read a PERFORMS scheme test set of mammographic films using multiviewers 11 . Recently, a related study 12 has compared UK and USA radiologists reading the same full field digital mammographic cases selected from a recent PERFORMS test scheme. However, whereas the UK radiologists used clinical mammographic workstations, the American group unfortunately only had access to lower resolution displays (as it had not been feasible to acquire clinical mammographic workstations for this study) necessitating the cases being selected so as not to disadvantage this group by not including small calcifications.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does routine breast screening practice over-ride display quality in reporting enriched test sets?

Chen

Gale

Evanoff

2013

Medical Imaging 2013: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The performance of a group of 16 American (US) breast screening radiologists in interpreting a number of cases from a recent PERFORMS self-assessment case set which had been carefully selected to exclude small calcifications, using submammographic resolution displays, as compared to a British (UK) group of radiologists using mammographic displays has previously been reported. It was found that the UK group performed better, detecting more cancers with the US participants correctly recalling less. These results were interpreted as due to differences in the displays employed by each group as well as to routine screening differences between the two countries. This current study extended that work with 11 of these experienced US breast screening radiologists further interpreting 20 new PERFORMS mammographic cases using a suitable mammographic clinical workstation. The PERFORMS cases were selected so as to show a range of normal, benign and abnormal appearances. Data from these radiologists were compared to their earlier performance on different PERFORMS cases and sub-clinical displays. Their data were also compared to recent data of 11 UK radiologists reading the same cases, again on clinical workstations as well as to all UK screeners. Despite using equivalent clinical monitors, data indicate differences between the UK and US groups in recall decisions which is not just a function of the countries' screening approaches. Lower detection of abnormal cases by the US group was found here and reasons for this are explored.

show abstract

Section: Previous Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%