ArticleThe British journal of radiology2012
Sensitivity and specificity of mammographic screening as practised in Vermont and Norway.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Liquid biopsy for cancer diagnosis using vibrational spectroscopy: systematic review.BJS open · 2020Pooled it
- Diagnostic Performance and Geographic Variation in Mammography Services: A Nine-Year Audit from Southern Jordan.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Performance Metrics of Mammography Screening Programmes in Primary Health Care Centres in Bahrain.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Influence of mammographic density and compressed breast thickness on true mammographic sensitivity: a cohort study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Clinical validation of the novel CLIA-CA-62 assay efficacy for early-stage breast cancer detection.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Estimating Cancer Screening Sensitivity and Specificity Using Healthcare Utilization Data: Defining the Accuracy Assessment Interval.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022Article
- Fully automatic classification of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) imaging according to BI-RADS using a deep convolutional neural network.European radiology · 2022Article
- Diagnostic efficacy of the new prospective biomarker's combination CA 15-3 and CA-62 for early-stage breast cancer detection: Results of the blind prospective-retrospective clinical study.Cancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers · 2022Article
- Autoantibodies as biomarkers for breast cancer diagnosis and prognosis.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
- Identifying normal mammograms in a large screening population using artificial intelligence.European radiology · 2021Article
- Article
- Is Ultrasound an Accurate Alternative for Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening in an Asian Population? A Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Sensitivity of screening mammography by density and texture: a cohort study from a population-based screening program in Denmark.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2019Article
- Cost- Effectiveness of Mammography Screening Program in a Resource-Limited Post-Soviet Country of Kazakhstan.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2019Article
- Long-term risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancer after false-positive results at mammography screening: joint analysis of three national cohorts.British journal of cancer · 2019Article
- Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence-Based Grading of Diabetic Retinopathy in Primary Care.JAMA network open · 2018Article
- National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Diagnostic Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.Radiology · 2017Article
- Circulating cell-free DNA-based epigenetic assay can detect early breast cancer.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2016Article
- Cross-national comparison of screening mammography accuracy measures in U.S., Norway, and Spain.European radiology · 2016Article
- Risk of breast cancer after false-positive results in mammographic screening.Cancer medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to examine the sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography as performed in Vermont, USA, and Norway.
methodsIncident screening data from 1997 to 2003 for female patients aged 50-69 years from the Vermont Breast Cancer Surveillance System (116 996 subsequent screening examinations) and the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program (360 872 subsequent screening examinations) were compared. Sensitivity and specificity estimates for the initial (based on screening mammogram only) and final (screening mammogram plus any further diagnostic imaging) interpretations were directly adjusted for age using 5-year age intervals for the combined Vermont and Norway population, and computed for 1 and 2 years of follow-up, which ended at the time of the next screening mammogram.
resultsFor the 1-year follow-up, sensitivities for initial assessments were 82.0%, 88.2% and 92.5% for 1-, 2- and >2-year screening intervals, respectively, in Vermont (p=0.022). For final assessments, the values were 73.6%, 83.3% and 81.2% (p=0.047), respectively. For Norway, sensitivities for initial assessments were 91.0% and 91.3% (p=0.529) for 2- and >2-year intervals, and 90.7% and 91.3%, respectively, for final assessments (p=0.630). Specificity was lower in Vermont than in Norway for each screening interval and for all screening intervals combined, for both initial (90.6% vs 97.8% for all intervals; p<0.001) and final (98.8% vs 99.5% for all intervals; p<0.001) assessments.
conclusionOur study showed higher sensitivity and specificity in a biennial screening programme with an independent double reading than in a predominantly annual screening program with a single reading. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study demonstrates that higher recall rates and lower specificity are not always associated with higher sensitivity of screening mammography. Differences in the screening processes in Norway and Vermont suggest potential areas for improvement in the latter.
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.