BACKGROUNDEarly detection with screening mammography can potentially reduce breast cancer mortality rates. To achieve an efficient screening, a peer review system provides a compensatory double-check reviewing, will hopefully to prevent the omission of detectable lesions and reduce unnecessary recall.

METHODSIn 2009, 4643 initial mammographic screenings reported by 74 screening radiologists had negative results with a recall rate of less than 5%. In the same year, 2538 initial positives screened by 18 screening radiologists had a recall rate higher than 15%. Those 7181 randomized screenings were evenly distributed for reassessment by 39 reviewing radiologists. The disagreement of assessments between the reviewers and screening radiologists was recorded. The differential rate was defined as the number of the disagreements divided by the number of audited films reviewed by a screening radiologist. The equality of the differential rates for each screening radiologists with negative and positive assessments was compared by a Chi-square test. The performance of the 39 auditors was measured by the Kendall's tau statistic. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTSThe mean differential rate for screening radiologists of negative assessments was 6.7% (P = 0.588), while 35.0% for positive assessments were significant (P < 0.001). The result indicated that most of the initial negative assessments reported by the screening radiologists were generally accepted by the reviewers but not the positive assessments. With respect to the 39 reviewers, there was no significant evidence for the association of the difference rates between negative and positive assessments. Nine reviewers were found to have their differential rate for negative and positive assessments larger than the average of the population. Eleven reviewers were found to have their differential rates smaller than the average for both. Thirteen reviewers had their differential rates smaller than the average for negative assessments but larger than the average for positive assessments. The opposite condition was found for six reviewers. The Kendall's tau statistic was 0.038 (P = 0.735).

CONCLUSIONSReviewers usually agreed with the opinion of the initial screening doctors who reported negative findings. Therefore, a 5% recall rate as the lower range of reviewing negatives may be still too high. The recall rate of more than 15% was significantly related to improper interpretation, especially when the differential rate is 25% or higher, a warning to the underperforming screening radiologist is recommended. An ideal reviewer should interpret films independently. Reviewers with tendencies to be followers or contrarians should not be enrolled in the reviewing system.

Breast Neoplasms ; diagnostic imaging ; Early Detection of Cancer ; Female ; Humans ; Mammography ; Peer Review ; Reproducibility of Results ; Taiwan

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the benefits of ClearVoice strategy on speech perception in noise and in everyday listening situations in Cantonese-speaking cochlear implant users. METHODS: Twelve experienced adult users of the Harmony implant and HiRes 120 sound processing participated in the study. The study employed a prospective within-subjects design wherein speech recognition in adults using HiRes 120 without ClearVoice turned on (control option) was compared to their performance with HiRes 120 with ClearVoice turned on. Each subject was evaluated with two different ClearVoice gain settings: -12 dB (ClearVoice medium) and -18 dB (ClearVoice high) after one-week of use. The Cantonese hearing in noise test and a questionnaire were used as the outcome measures. RESULTS: Subjects performed significantly better with ClearVoice medium than with control option in noise. No significant difference in performance was noted among the 3 settings in quiet. Most subjects reported high level of satisfaction with ClearVoice in daily listening situations and preferred to keep ClearVoice on. CONCLUSION: ClearVoice can help cochlear implant recipients to hear better in noise.
Adult ; Cochlear Implantation ; Cochlear Implants ; Hearing ; Humans ; Noise ; Prospective Studies ; Speech Perception ; Surveys and Questionnaires