Why Does It Take Longer to Read Digital Than Film-Screen Screening Mammograms? A Partial Explanation
Open Access
- 13 February 2009
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Journal of Digital Imaging
- Vol. 23 (2), 170-180
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-009-9177-9
Abstract
Digital screening mammograms (DM) take longer to interpret than film-screen screening mammograms (FSM). We evaluated what part of the process takes long in our reading environment. We selected cases from those for which timed readings had been performed as part of a previous study. Readers were timed as they performed various computer manipulations on groups of DM cases and as they moved the alternator and adjusted lighting and manual shutters for FSM cases. Subtracting manipulation time from the original interpretation times yielded estimated times to reach a decision. Manipulation times for DM ranged from a low of 11 s when four-view DM were simply opened and closed in a 4-on-1 hanging protocol before moving on to the next study to 113.8 s when each view of six-view DM were brought up 1-on-1, enlarged to 100% resolution, and panned through. Manipulation times for groups of FSM ranged from 8.3 to 12.1 s. Estimated decision-making times for DM ranged from 128.0 to 202.2 s, while estimated decision-making time for FSM ranged from 60.9 to 146.3 s. Computer manipulation time partially explains the discrepancy in interaction times between DM and FSM. Radiologists also appear to spend more time looking at DM than at FSM before making a decision.Keywords
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- Full-Field Digital Versus Screen-Film Mammography: Comparative Accuracy in Concurrent Screening CohortsAmerican Journal of Roentgenology, 2007
- Randomized Trial of Screen-Film versus Full-Field Digital Mammography with Soft-Copy Reading in Population-based Screening Program: Follow-up and Final Results of Oslo II StudyRadiology, 2007
- Digital and Screen-Film Mammography: Comparison of Image Acquisition and Interpretation TimesAmerican Journal of Roentgenology, 2006
- Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer ScreeningNew England Journal of Medicine, 2005
- Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan Digital Mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population1Academic Radiology, 2004
- Screen-Film Mammography versus Full-Field Digital Mammography with Soft-Copy Reading: Randomized Trial in a Population-based Screening Program—The Oslo II StudyRadiology, 2004
- Soft Copy Display Requirements for Digital MammographyJournal of Digital Imaging, 2003
- Population-based Mammography Screening: Comparison of Screen-Film and Full-Field Digital Mammography with Soft-Copy Reading—Oslo I StudyRadiology, 2003
- Interpretation of Digital Mammograms: Comparison of Speed and Accuracy of Soft-Copy versus Printed-Film DisplayRadiology, 2002
- [Time needs in evaluating digital thoracic images on the monitor in comparison with alternator].2001