title: Timed efficiency of interpretation of digital and film-screen screening mammograms.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Our objective was to compare interpretation speeds for digital and film-screen screening mammograms to test whether other variables might affect interpretation times and thus contribute to the apparent difference in interpretation speed between digital mammograms and film-screen mammograms, and to test whether the use of digital rather than film comparison studies might result in significant time savings.
  
  
  METHODS
  Four readers were timed in the course of actual clinical interpretation of digital mammograms and film-screen mammograms. Interpretation times were compared for subgroups of studies based on the interpretation of the study by BI-RADS code, the number of images, the presence or absence of comparison studies and the type of comparison study, and whether the radiologist personally selected and hung additional films; the same comparisons were made among individual readers.
  
  
  RESULTS
  For all four readers, mean interpretation times were longer for digital mammograms than for film-screen mammograms, with differences ranging from 76 to 202 seconds. The difference in interpretation speed between digital and film-screen mammograms was independent of other variables. Digital mammogram interpretation times were significantly longer than film-screen mammogram interpretation times regardless of whether the digital mammograms were matched with film or digital comparison studies.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In screening mammography interpretation, digital mammograms take longer to read than film-screen mammograms, independent of other variables. Exclusive use of digital comparison studies may not cause interpretation times to drop enough to approach the interpretation time required for film-screen mammograms.
authors.affiliation: Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Unit 1273, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX 77030-4009, USA. tamara.haygood@di.mdacc.tmc.edu
authors.forename: Tamara Miner
authors.initials: TM
authors.lastname: Haygood
authors.forename: Jihong
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Wang
authors.forename: E Neely
authors.initials: EN
authors.lastname: Atkinson
authors.forename: Deanna
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Lane
authors.forename: Tanya W
authors.initials: TW
authors.lastname: Stephens
authors.forename: Parul
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Patel
authors.forename: Gary J
authors.initials: GJ
authors.lastname: Whitman
mesh_terms: D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000453:epidemiology; D017598:Efficiency, Organizational / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008327:Mammography / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D015588:Observer Variation; D011361:Professional Competence; D011856:Radiographic Image Enhancement; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D013647:Task Performance and Analysis; D013781:Texas / Q000453:epidemiology; D016526:Workload / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D014962:X-Ray Film / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*