Search

Objectives: To estimate detection measures for tomosynthesis and standard mammography; to assess the feasibility of using tomosynthesis in population-based screening for breast cancer.Design, Setting: Prospective pilot trial comparing tomosynthesis (with synthesised 2D images) and standard mammography screening of women attending Maroondah BreastScreen, a BreastScreen Victoria service in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne.Participants: Women at least 40 years of age who presented for routine breast screening between 18 August 2017 and 8 November 2018.Main Outcome Measures: Cancer detection rate (CDR); proportion of screens that led to recall for further assessment.Results: 5018 tomosynthesis and 5166 standard mammography screens were undertaken in 10 146 women; 508 women (5.0% of screens) opted not to undergo tomosynthesis screening. With tomosynthesis, 49 cancers (40 invasive, 9 in situ) were detected (CDR, 9.8 [95% CI, 7.2-13] per 1000 screens); with standard mammography, 34 cancers (30 invasive, 4 in situ) were detected (CDR, 6.6 [95% CI, 4.6-9.2] per 1000 screens). The estimated difference in CDR was 3.2 more detections (95% CI, -0.32 to 6.8) per 1000 screens with tomosynthesis; the difference was greater for repeat screens and for women aged 60 years or more. The recall rate was greater for tomosynthesis (4.2%; 95% CI, 3.6-4.8%) than standard mammography (3.0%; 95% CI, 2.6-3.5%; estimated difference, 1.2%; 95% CI, 0.46-1.9%). The median screen reading time for tomosynthesis was 67 seconds (interquartile range [IQR] 46-105 seconds); for standard mammography, 16 seconds (IQR, 10-29 seconds).Conclusions: Breast cancer detection, recall for assessment, and screen reading time were each higher for tomosynthesis than for standard mammography. Our preliminary findings could form the basis of a large scale comparative evaluation of tomosynthesis and standard mammography for breast screening in Australia.Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617000947303. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on standard deviation and standard error and their interpretation, usage and reporting.

Understanding how to interpret diagnostic test accuracy studies is a key skill that health practitioners need to develop in order to undertake evidence-based practice.[1] In this article we guide the reader through how to interpret a diagnostic test accuracy study, including the potential for bias. Typically, tests with higher sensitivity have lower specificity and vice versa, so the main purpose of applying the test must be considered when deciding on choice of test.[5] A highly specific test (Sp) returning a positive result (P) effectively rules in the diagnosis (SpPin); for example, meningococcal rash in meningococcal meningitis. Although we have focused on single diagnostic test accuracy studies so far, ideally we should seek out systematic reviews of the test we are interested in, so that we have estimates of test accuracy based on the totality of the evidence. When the spectrum of disease in the study population does not represent the intended population where the test will be used, test accuracy estimates may not be applicable. [Extracted from the article]

This is a review of 963 cases of self-poisoning with drugs (8.5% of all medical emergencies) treated in the three major Newcastle hospitals over a 3 1/2-year period. The number of patients admitted rose from 243 (July 1976 to June 1977) to 326 (January to December, 1979)-an overall increase of 34%. The most common drugs used were benzodiazepines (34.9% of cases); barbiturates (11.2%); tricyclic depressants (9.2%); paracetamol (8.1%) and phenothiazines (6.2%). In four of 134 cases involving barbiturates, phenobarbitone had been used as part of an anticonvulsant regimen. Six patients died in hospital and 31 who committed suicide with drugs were not admitted to the hospital, but were investigated by the Regional Forensic Pathologist.