|
Outcome
|
Sample size (no. of studies)
|
True positive: Single reading + CAD (95% CI)
|
True positive: Double reading (95% CI)
|
Absolute difference (95%CI)
|
Quality of evidence
|
Rating based on study design/quality, indirectness, consistency, precision and publication bias**
|
|---|
|
Cancer detection rate
|
28,204 (1)
|
0.702%
|
0.706%
|
0.004%
| (⊕OOO) |
Study quality –1
|
| | |
(0.6–0.8)
|
(0.6–0.8)
|
(NS*)
|
Insufficient
|
Indirectness–1
|
|
Recall rate
|
28,204 (1)
|
3,9%
|
3,4%
|
0,5%
| (⊕OOO) |
Study quality –1
|
| | |
(3,7–4,1)
|
(3,2–3,6)
|
(0,3–0,8)
|
Insufficient
|
Indirectness -1 One study –1
|
- *NS = no statistically significant difference.
- ** Study quality = Risk of bias, that is, sensitivity probably overestimated due to incomplete follow-up of women with negative test results.
- Indirectness = Only breast radiologists with long clinical experience took part in the study.
- Lack of precision = The difference in sensitivity between double reading and single reading + CAD has wide confidence intervals.
