Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading in digital mammography screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10757/622261
Title:
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading in digital mammography screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors:
Posso, Margarita; Puig, Teresa; Carles, Misericòrdia; Rué, Montserrat; Canelo-Aybar, Carlos; Bonfill, Xavier
Citation:
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading in digital mammography screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis 2017, 96:40 European Journal of Radiology
Publisher:
Elsevier Ireland Ltd
Journal:
European Journal of Radiology
Issue Date:
Nov-2017
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10757/622261
DOI:
10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.09.013
Additional Links:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0720048X17303716
Abstract:
Purpose Double reading is the strategy of choice for mammogram interpretation in screening programmes. It remains, however, unknown whether double reading is still the strategy of choice in the context of digital mammography. Our aim was to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading versus single reading of digital mammograms in screening programmes. Methods We performed a systematic review by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to April 2017. We used the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) tool and CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklist to assess the methodological quality of the diagnostic studies and economic evaluations, respectively. A proportion's meta-analysis approach, 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI) and test of heterogeneity (P values) were used for pooled results. Costs are expressed US$ PPP (United States Dollar purchasing power parities). The PROSPERO ID of this Systematic Review's protocol is CRD42014013804. Results Of 1473 potentially relevant hits, four high-quality studies were included. The pooled cancer detection rate of double reading was 6.01 per 1000 screens (CI: 4.47‰–7.77‰), and it was 5.65 per 1000 screens (CI: 3.95‰–7.65‰) for single reading (P = 0.76). The pooled proportion of false-positives of double reading was 47.03 per 1000 screens (CI: 39.13‰–55.62‰) and it was 40.60 per 1000 screens (CI: 38.58‰–42.67‰) for single reading (P = 0.12). One study reported, for double reading, an ICER (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio) of 16,684 Euros (24,717 US$ PPP; 2015 value) per detected cancer. Single reading + CAD (computer-aided-detection) was cost-effective in Japan. Conclusion The evidence of benefit for double reading compared to single reading for digital mammography interpretation is scarce. Double reading seems to increase operational costs, have a not significantly higher false-positive rate, and a similar cancer detection rate. © 2017 Elsevier B.V.
Type:
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Rights:
info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
Language:
eng
Description:
El texto completo de este trabajo no está disponible en el Repositorio Académico UPC por restricciones de la casa editorial donde ha sido publicado.
Keywords:
Cost and cost analysis; Mammography; Mass screening; Cost and cost analysis; Systematic review
ISSN:
0720048X
Email:
ccanelo@santpau.cat

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorPosso, Margaritaes
dc.contributor.authorPuig, Teresaes
dc.contributor.authorCarles, Misericòrdiaes
dc.contributor.authorRué, Montserrates
dc.contributor.authorCanelo-Aybar, Carloses
dc.contributor.authorBonfill, Xavieres
dc.date.accessioned2017-10-19T16:36:06Z-
dc.date.available2017-10-19T16:36:06Z-
dc.date.issued2017-11-
dc.identifier.citationEffectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading in digital mammography screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis 2017, 96:40 European Journal of Radiologyes
dc.identifier.issn0720048X-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.09.013-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10757/622261-
dc.descriptionEl texto completo de este trabajo no está disponible en el Repositorio Académico UPC por restricciones de la casa editorial donde ha sido publicado.es_PE
dc.description.abstractPurpose Double reading is the strategy of choice for mammogram interpretation in screening programmes. It remains, however, unknown whether double reading is still the strategy of choice in the context of digital mammography. Our aim was to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading versus single reading of digital mammograms in screening programmes. Methods We performed a systematic review by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to April 2017. We used the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) tool and CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklist to assess the methodological quality of the diagnostic studies and economic evaluations, respectively. A proportion's meta-analysis approach, 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI) and test of heterogeneity (P values) were used for pooled results. Costs are expressed US$ PPP (United States Dollar purchasing power parities). The PROSPERO ID of this Systematic Review's protocol is CRD42014013804. Results Of 1473 potentially relevant hits, four high-quality studies were included. The pooled cancer detection rate of double reading was 6.01 per 1000 screens (CI: 4.47‰–7.77‰), and it was 5.65 per 1000 screens (CI: 3.95‰–7.65‰) for single reading (P = 0.76). The pooled proportion of false-positives of double reading was 47.03 per 1000 screens (CI: 39.13‰–55.62‰) and it was 40.60 per 1000 screens (CI: 38.58‰–42.67‰) for single reading (P = 0.12). One study reported, for double reading, an ICER (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio) of 16,684 Euros (24,717 US$ PPP; 2015 value) per detected cancer. Single reading + CAD (computer-aided-detection) was cost-effective in Japan. Conclusion The evidence of benefit for double reading compared to single reading for digital mammography interpretation is scarce. Double reading seems to increase operational costs, have a not significantly higher false-positive rate, and a similar cancer detection rate. © 2017 Elsevier B.V.es
dc.formatapplication/pdfes
dc.language.isoenges
dc.publisherElsevier Ireland Ltdes
dc.relation.urlhttp://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0720048X17303716es
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccesses
dc.subjectCost and cost analysises
dc.subjectMammographyes
dc.subjectMass screeninges
dc.subjectCost and cost analysises
dc.subjectSystematic reviewes
dc.titleEffectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading in digital mammography screening: A systematic review and meta-analysises
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees
dc.identifier.journalEuropean Journal of Radiologyes
dc.description.peerreviewRevisión por pareses_PE
dc.contributor.emailccanelo@santpau.cates_PE
All Items in UPC are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.