Six studies, assessing more than 22,000 mammograms (range 793 to 17,202), were included in the review. Four studies used radiographers in double reading of mammograms, in one study mammograms were pre-read by radiographers, and in the remaining study radiographers were the sole readers.
Mammogram interpretation performance: Four studies indicated that interpretation by radiographers was poorer than for radiologists, due to higher numbers of false positives: Specificities ranged from 81 to 95% for radiologists and from 64 to 91% for radiographers; sensitivities were similar for radiologists (73 to 86%) and radiographers (73 to 90%).
Effects of training: Five studies included a training programme for mammogram readers (variable duration and content) and three studies assessed the performance of radiographers before and after training and all recorded an increase in diagnostic odds ratio, but differences between the reported before and after training diagnostic odds ratios were not statistically significant.
Effects of reader on routine clinical practice: No studies were identified that assessed the effects of routine employment of radiographers in the reading of mammograms on sensitivity and specificity.