A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

The value of the second view in screening mammography. | LitMetric

The value of the second view in screening mammography.

Br J Radiol

Breast Screening Service, St Margaret's Hospital, Epping, Essex, UK.

Published: February 1996

A prospective study of 33,734 women was undertaken during the prevalent round of the UK National Breast Screening Programme. The cancer detection rates and recall rates were compared between a one view and a two view technique. In one fifth of the women, only the single oblique view examination was read. To lose the bias that would have been introduced by the prior knowledge that a second view would be available, the radiologists reading the oblique view did not know whether or not a craniocaudal view would subsequently be available. Readings were available from two radiologists in each case. The cancer detection rate increased from 7.6 per thousand to 8.2 per thousand women screened, with 14 more cancers detected with the two view technique. This represents 6.5% of all screen detected cancers (95% CI 3.2-9.8). The recall rate was reduced from 8.8% to 6.6% by the second view (p < 0.001). There was a significantly higher biopsy rate in the two view group (10.6/1000 versus 8.6/1000) (p = 0.004). This higher biopsy rate is part of the price paid for the higher detection rate. The additional tumours included small invasive cancers. The National Health Service (NHS) cost of each additional cancer diagnosed was 4129 pounds and the NHS plus private cost was 2742 pounds. These findings have practical applications for the National Breast Screening Programme. There would be resource implications on routinely applying two view screening to the prevalent round, but even greater costs if applied to the incident screening round.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-69-818-105DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

second view
12
view
10
view screening
8
prevalent round
8
national breast
8
breast screening
8
screening programme
8
cancer detection
8
view technique
8
oblique view
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!