- Poster presentation
- Open Access
Quality assurance of routinely collected data in the Computer Aided Detection Evaluation Trial
- Published: 14 July 2004
Keywords
- Confidence Interval
- Cancer Research
- Retrospective Study
- Quality Assurance
- Detection Evaluation
A study may only be feasible when routinely collected data (RCD) are used to identify participants. RCD from one centre in a retrospective study of computer-aided detection (CAD) in breast screening are considered. Double-read mammograms were re-read by a different reader using CAD (R2 ImageChecker®) and the cancer detection and recall rates were compared.
Subjects attended routine screening during 1996 and were aged 50 years or over. Among RCD subjects, 11,947 (92.5%) were eligible. From the study sample (n = 5037), a subsample of 650 (13%) subjects was examined.
Previous attendance was incorrect in all four subjects with earlier screening at a different centre. The reader was correctly recorded in all but one subject where it was missing on the paper copy. Whether a subject was recalled for further examination was correct for all subjects; however, single-reader recall, when recall was requested by only one radiologist, was incorrect in 22 (3%) cases; each was among the 53 (8%) recalls showing 42% were incorrect (95% confidence interval, 28–56%).
Single-reader recall was unreliable and previous attendance did not have sufficient detail to report the whether a screen was prevalent. Both were checked throughout the study. Issues raised when using RCD are discussed.
