The Library
Comparing the use and interpretation of PGMI scoring to assess the technical quality of screening mammograms in the UK and Norway
Tools
Boyce, M., Gullien, R., Parashar, D. and Taylor, K. (2015) Comparing the use and interpretation of PGMI scoring to assess the technical quality of screening mammograms in the UK and Norway. Radiographics, 21 (4). pp. 342-347. doi:10.1016/j.radi.2015.05.006 ISSN 0271-5333.
Research output not available from this repository.
Request-a-Copy directly from author or use local Library Get it For Me service.
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2015.05.006
Abstract
Objectives
To compare PGMI systems used in the UK and Norway, determine levels of agreement in its interpretation for radiographers within and between centres, informing further research towards developing a more quantitative, uniform system.
Methods
Mammograms from 112 women consecutively screened in the UK and Norway were anonymised, numbered and enriched to include all four PGMI categories. Cases were scored by five mammographers from each centre using local PGMI. Sets were exchanged and the process repeated. Distribution of categories was recorded and faults documented for images scored less than perfect. These were compared within and between centres and agreement analysed using non-weighted kappa statistic.
Results
Norway uses 38 assessment criteria, the UK uses 15. Best agreement was between Norway raters scoring MLO views from both UK(RMLO k = 0.57, LMLO k = 0.490) and Norway (RMLO k = 0.48, LMLO k = 0.470). Least agreement was between UK raters scoring CC views from both UK(RCC k = 0.007, LCC k = 0.01) and Norway(RCC k = −0.04, LCC k = −0.003). There were no other apparent trends in inter-rater assessment. Most frequent faults in both test sets were on MLO views. Two out of three most common faults were the same for UK and Norway raters.
Conclusions
Use of PGMI varied between centres in both number and interpretation of criteria employed. We identified the most common mammographic faults highlighting possible training needs. We suggest further work to provide a consensus list of visual criteria with accurate descriptors for each classification category. A validated way of applying them could help to standardise the process.
Item Type: | Journal Article | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Divisions: | Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences > Cancer Research Unit Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School |
||||||||||
Journal or Publication Title: | Radiographics | ||||||||||
Publisher: | Australian Institute of Radiography | ||||||||||
ISSN: | 0271-5333 | ||||||||||
Official Date: | November 2015 | ||||||||||
Dates: |
|
||||||||||
Volume: | 21 | ||||||||||
Number: | 4 | ||||||||||
Page Range: | pp. 342-347 | ||||||||||
DOI: | 10.1016/j.radi.2015.05.006 | ||||||||||
Status: | Peer Reviewed | ||||||||||
Publication Status: | Published | ||||||||||
Access rights to Published version: | Restricted or Subscription Access | ||||||||||
Adapted As: |
Request changes or add full text files to a record
Repository staff actions (login required)
View Item |