Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading in digital mammography screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Name:
Publisher version
View Source
Access full-text PDFOpen Access
View Source
Check access options
Check access options
Average rating
Cast your vote
You can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item.
When enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown.
Star rating
Your vote was cast
Thank you for your feedback
Thank you for your feedback
Authors
Posso, MargaritaPuig, Teresa
Carles, Misericòrdia
Rué, Montserrat
Canelo-Aybar, Carlos
Bonfill, Xavier
Issue Date
2017-11xmlui.metadata.dc.contributor.email
[email protected]
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading in digital mammography screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis 2017, 96:40 European Journal of RadiologyPublisher
Elsevier Ireland LtdJournal
European Journal of RadiologyDOI
10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.09.013Additional Links
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0720048X17303716Abstract
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/articleRights
info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccessLanguage
engDescription
El texto completo de este trabajo no está disponible en el Repositorio Académico UPC por restricciones de la casa editorial donde ha sido publicado.ISSN
0720048Xae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.09.013
Scopus Count
Collections