ArticleRadiology2012
Mammographic interpretive volume and diagnostic mammogram interpretation performance in community practice.
Article in Radiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- A machine learning model based on readers' characteristics to predict their performances in reading screening mammograms.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2022Article
- Strengthening Health Services Research Using Target Trial Emulation: An Application to Volume-Outcomes Studies.American journal of epidemiology · 2021Article
- Observational
- Interpretive Performance and Inter-Observer Agreement on Digital Mammography Test Sets.Korean journal of radiology · 2019Article
- How Many of the Biopsy Decisions Taken at Inexperienced Breast Radiology Units Were Correct?The journal of breast health · 2017Article
- Factors associated with breast screening radiologists' annual mammogram reading volume in Italy.La Radiologia medica · 2016Article
- Patient and Radiologist Characteristics Associated With Accuracy of Two Types of Diagnostic Mammograms.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2015Article
- Do mammographic technologists affect radiologists' diagnostic mammography interpretative performance?AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2015Article
- Article
- Reduction of false-positive recalls using a computerized mammographic image feature analysis scheme.Physics in medicine and biology · 2014Article
- Training the ACRIN 6666 Investigators and effects of feedback on breast ultrasound interpretive performance and agreement in BI-RADS ultrasound feature analysis.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the association between radiologist interpretive volume and diagnostic mammography performance in community-based settings. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study received institutional review board approval and was HIPAA compliant. A total of 117,136 diagnostic mammograms that were interpreted by 107 radiologists between 2002 and 2006 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were included. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the adjusted effect on sensitivity and the rates of false-positive findings and cancer detection of four volume measures: annual diagnostic volume, screening volume, total volume, and diagnostic focus (percentage of total volume that is diagnostic). Analyses were stratified by the indication for imaging: additional imaging after screening mammography or evaluation of a breast concern or problem.
resultsDiagnostic volume was associated with sensitivity; the odds of a true-positive finding rose until a diagnostic volume of 1000 mammograms was reached; thereafter, they either leveled off (P < .001 for additional imaging) or decreased (P = .049 for breast concerns or problems) with further volume increases. Diagnostic focus was associated with false-positive rate; the odds of a false-positive finding increased until a diagnostic focus of 20% was reached and decreased thereafter (P < .024 for additional imaging and P < .001 for breast concerns or problems with no self-reported lump). Neither total volume nor screening volume was consistently associated with diagnostic performance.
conclusionInterpretive volume and diagnostic performance have complex multifaceted relationships. Our results suggest that diagnostic interpretive volume is a key determinant in the development of thresholds for considering a diagnostic mammogram to be abnormal. Current volume regulations do not distinguish between screening and diagnostic mammography, and doing so would likely be challenging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.