Diagnostic accuracy of mammography readers and their memory performance have no correlation with each other

[Systematic errors in clinical studies : A comprehensive survey]

Systematic errors and related phenomena represent an intrinsic challenge to the quality of clinical research. As a consequence even otherwise methodologically demanding studies may produce results that systematically differ from the true values. Systematic errors relating to investigative medicine are divided into six groups according to their affiliation with the consecutive chronological sections of the study. Bias can occur in preliminary literature research in the field, specifying the study design and selecting the study sample, measuring exposure and outcome, analyzing the data, interpreting the analyses and publishing the results. The most important systematic errors that concern diagnostic and interventional studies are created by access to the data of previous tests, calculated study design, preselection of the participants, comparison with non-contemporaneous controls, antedating the time of diagnosis and overdiagnosis of slowly progressive forms of diseases examined. Checking the measured values often leads to a mosaic of several biases with one being more or less dominant. Even by exercising due care in the preparation and performance of the study, the majority of distortions cannot be eliminated but only diminished. It is essential to consider each detected bias as a potential full or partial argument in support of an observed correlation. The control of systematic errors and related phenomena is both a significant element of the discussion of the study report and a key element for assessment of its scientific value.

[Systematic errors in clinical studies : A comprehensive survey]

Systematic errors and related phenomena represent an intrinsic challenge to the quality of clinical research. As a consequence even otherwise methodologically demanding studies may produce results that systematically differ from the true values. Systematic errors relating to investigative medicine are divided into six groups according to their affiliation with the consecutive chronological sections of the study. Bias can occur in preliminary literature research in the field, specifying the study design and selecting the study sample, measuring exposure and outcome, analyzing the data, interpreting the analyses and publishing the results. The most important systematic errors that concern diagnostic and interventional studies are created by access to the data of previous tests, calculated study design, preselection of the participants, comparison with non-contemporaneous controls, antedating the time of diagnosis and overdiagnosis of slowly progressive forms of diseases examined. Checking the measured values often leads to a mosaic of several biases with one being more or less dominant. Even by exercising due care in the preparation and performance of the study, the majority of distortions cannot be eliminated but only diminished. It is essential to consider each detected bias as a potential full or partial argument in support of an observed correlation. The control of systematic errors and related phenomena is both a significant element of the discussion of the study report and a key element for assessment of its scientific value.

Cancer on a mammogram is not memorable: readers remember their recalls and not cancers

AIM

To determine if presence of cancer on a mammogram makes that mammogram more memorable.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 100 mammograms (25 cancers) were grouped into 5 sets of 20 cases. Set pairs were presented in five reads to eight radiologist readers. Readers were asked to 'clear' or 'call back' cases, and at post-baseline reads to indicate whether each case was 'new' or 'old' (remembered from prior read). Two sets were presented only at baseline, to calculate each reader's false recollection rate. For cases presented more than once ('old' cases, 100 presentations) readers could have 'correct memory' or 'memory loss'. Memory performance was defined as odds ratio of correct memory to memory loss. Multivariate logistic data regression analysis identified predictors of memory performance from: reader, set, time since last read, presence of cancer, and whether the case was called back at the last read.

RESULTS

Memory performance differed markedly between readers and reader identity was a highly significant predictor of memory performance. Presence of cancer was not a significant predictor of memory performance (odds ratio 0.77, 95% CI: 0.49-1.21). Whether the case was called back at the last read was a highly significant predictor (odds ratio 4.22, 95% CI: 2.70-6.61) for the model incorporating reader variability, and also the model without reader variability (odds ratio 2.67, 95% CI: 1.74-4.08).

CONCLUSION

The only statistically significant predictor of radiologist memory for a mammogram was whether the radiologist 'called it back' at a prior reading round. Presence of cancer on a mammogram did not make it memorable.