Association Between Time Spent Interpreting, Level of Confidence, and Accuracy of Screening Mammography

PURPOSE: To examine the effect of time spent viewing images and level of confidence on a screening mammography test set on interpretive performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiologists from six mammography registries participated in the study and were randomized to interpret one of four test sets and complete 12 survey questions. Each test set had 109 cases of digitized four-view screening film-screen mammograms with prior comparison screening views. Viewing time for each case was defined as the cumulative time spent viewing all mammographic images before recording which visible feature, if any, was the “most significant finding”. Log-linear regression fit via GEE was used to test the effect of viewing time and level of confidence in the interpretation on test set sensitivity and false-positive rate. RESULTS: 119 radiologists completed a test set and contributed data on 11,484 interpretations. Radiologists spent more time viewing cases that had significant findings or for which they had less confidence in interpretation. Each additional minute of viewing time increased the probability of a true positive interpretation among cancer cases by 1.12 (95% CI: 1.06, 1.19, p<0.001), regardless of confidence in the assessment. Among radiologists who were ‘very confident’ in their assessment, each additional minute of viewing time increased the adjusted risk of a false positive interpretation among non-cancer cases by 1.42 (95% CI 1.21, 1.68), and this viewing-time effect diminished with decreasing confidence. CONCLUSIONS: Longer interpretation times and higher levels of confidence in the interpretation are both associated with higher sensitivity and false positive rates in mammography screening

Supine position compared to other positions during the second stage of labor: a meta-analytic review.

Contains fulltext : 59339.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)The routine use of the supine position during the second stage of labor can be considered to be an intervention in the natural course of labor. This study aimed to establish whether the continuation of this intervention is justified. Nine randomized controlled trials and one cohort study were included. A meta-analysis indicated a higher rate of instrumental deliveries and episiotomies in the supine position. A lower estimated blood loss and lower rate of postpartum hemorrhage were found in the supine position, however it is not clear whether this is a real or only an observed difference. Heterogenous, non-pooled data showed that women experienced more severe pain in the supine position and had a preference for other birthing positions. Many methodological problems were identified in the studies and the appropriateness of a randomized controlled trial to study this subject is called into question. A cohort study is recommended as a more appropriate methodology, supplemented by a qualitative method to study women's experiences. Objective laboratory measurements are advised to examine the difference in blood loss. In conclusion, the results do not justify the continuation of the routine use of the supine position during the second stage of labor