Just how valuable is double reporting in screening mammography?
The double reporting of screening mammograms has become an aim of most United Kingdom screening units although it is not Department of Health policy. It is recognized that mammogram reporting sensitivity improves with experience. This study was designed to assess how valuable double reporting has been in our unit. The data from the first screening round, including the interval cancers which were detected during the subsequent 3 years, were analysed. The reporting sensitivities of the less experienced radiologist improved during the 3 years of the first screening round from 90.6% to 98.9%. For the more experienced radiologist sensitivities ranged from 97.1% to 98.9%. Overall the increased sensitivity from double reporting over single reporting was 1.5% over the best to 4.2% over the worst single reader. With such a relatively small difference between single and double reporting and high individual reporting standards, it is hard to justify the additional resources required for double reporting.
Denton
E R
ER
Department of Radiology, Kent and Canterbury Hospital, UK.
Field
S
S
D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000517:prevention & control; D004739:England; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008327:Mammography / Q000379:methods*; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000379:methods*; D015588:Observer Variation; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity