Garrett: < 0 (less than chance), 0.01–0.20 (slight), 0.21–0.40 (fair), 0.41–0.60 (moderate), (substantial), 0.81–0.99 (almost perfect), and 1 (perfect) agreement. Results A total of 560 readings were made by participants before (pre-test) and after the-intervention (post-test). The distribution of breast density categories according to the majority report of participants relative to radiologists is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1A and B: Distribution of cases into BI-RADS® categories according to the majority report of participants relative to radiologists. According to the majority report of radiologists, there were 35%, 25%, 32.5%, and 7.5% of 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively. The percentage (number) of cases participants classified into different BI-RADS® categories was similar to that of the radiologists (Pre-intervention: 27.5%; 35%; 32.5%; 27.5%; 10%, and Post: 35%; 22.5%; 32.5%; 10%). However, mammogram cases classified into MBD categories differed considerably (Figure 1A and B). Inter-reader agreement for participants before and after the intervention assessment is shown in Table 1. In the pre-intervention phase, inter-reader agreement varied from substantial (0.70; 95%CI: 0.49–0.83) to almost perfect (0.89; 95%CI: 0.79–0.94), and the overall inter-reader agreement was substantial (0.79; 95%CI: 0.70–0.87). Post-intervention analysis demonstrated substantial (0.79; 95%CI: 0.65–0.89) to almost perfect (0.92; 95%CI: 0.86–0.96) inter-reader agreement, and an almost perfect overall agreement (0.84; 95%CI: 0.77–0.90) for all participants.
Garrett: < 0 (less than chance), 0.01–0.20 (slight), 0.21–0.40 (fair), 0.41–0.60 (moderate), (substantial), 0.81–0.99 (almost perfect), and 1 (perfect) agreement. Results A total of 560 readings were made by participants before (pre-test) and after the-intervention (post-test). The distribution of breast density categories according to the majority report of participants relative to radiologists is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1A and B: Distribution of cases into BI-RADS® categories according to the majority report of participants relative to radiologists. According to the majority report of radiologists, there were 35%, 25%, 32.5%, and 7.5% of 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively. The percentage (number) of cases participants classified into different BI-RADS® categories was similar to that of the radiologists (Pre-intervention: 27.5%; 35%; 32.5%; 27.5%; 10%, and Post: 35%; 22.5%; 32.5%; 10%). However, mammogram cases classified into MBD categories differed considerably (Figure 1A and B). Inter-reader agreement for participants before and after the intervention assessment is shown in Table 1. In the pre-intervention phase, inter-reader agreement varied from substantial (0.70; 95%CI: 0.49–0.83) to almost perfect (0.89; 95%CI: 0.79–0.94), and the overall inter-reader agreement was substantial (0.79; 95%CI: 0.70–0.87). Post-intervention analysis demonstrated substantial (0.79; 95%CI: 0.65–0.89) to almost perfect (0.92; 95%CI: 0.86–0.96) inter-reader agreement, and an almost perfect overall agreement (0.84; 95%CI: 0.77–0.90) for all participants.
Revised%20paper%2018-5-2017.docx