AbstractBreast screening involves the interpretation and reporting of mammographic images. In the UK, the images are independently double reported, and inherent with this strategy is that readers may disagree with their decision as to whether a potential abnormality requires further investigation. Discrepant findings require resolution, which is currently achieved by some form of arbitration or consensus.
The primary focus of this scoping review was to establish what evidence is there to inform arbitration and consensus processes and what is their effectiveness within mammography reporting. A systematic scoping review was undertaken to identify the ‘nature and extent of research evidence’.
The first stage of the process describes the various sources of information that were searched (databases, conference proceedings, personal contacts and unpublished data sources) using varying search strategies. A 3-stage process was utilised to screen a large volume of literature (601) against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. 26 papers were retained for the final review.
The results of the data extraction were synthesized into key features and emerging themes, with generalizability discussed relative to UK practice. The review has identified a lack of guidance and underpinning evidence to inform how best to use arbitration or consensus to resolve discordant reads. The strengths and weaknesses of the study are discussed and recommendations for future research.
|Date of Award||2016|
|Sponsors||National Institute for Health Research|
|Supervisor||Becky Whiteman (Supervisor), Louise Moody (Supervisor) & Ala Szczepura (Supervisor)|