ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2012
Radiologist agreement for mammographic recall by case difficulty and finding type.
Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnosis of architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis using radiomics and deep learning.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Left-right breast asymmetry and risk of screen-detected and interval cancers in a large population-based screening population.The British journal of radiology · 2020Article
- Nonspecific Symptoms Lack Diagnostic Accuracy for Infection in Older Patients in the Emergency Department.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2019Observational
- A measure of association for ordered categorical data in population-based studies.Statistical methods in medical research · 2018Article
- Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of architectural distortion.European radiology · 2018Article
- Summary measures of agreement and association between many raters' ordinal classifications.Annals of epidemiology · 2017Review
- Assessing the influence of rater and subject characteristics on measures of agreement for ordinal ratings.Statistics in medicine · 2017Article
- Accuracy of Current Diagnostic Criteria for Acute Bacterial Infection in Older Adults in the Emergency Department.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2017Observational
- An investigation into the mammographic appearances of missed breast cancers when recall rates are reduced.The British journal of radiology · 2017Article
- Measures of agreement between many raters for ordinal classifications.Statistics in medicine · 2015Article
- Evaluation of an Automated Information Extraction Tool for Imaging Data Elements to Populate a Breast Cancer Screening Registry.Journal of digital imaging · 2015Article
- Aggregate cost of mammography screening in the United States: comparison of current practice and advocated guidelines.Annals of internal medicine · 2014Article
- Experiences with a self-test for Dutch breast screening radiologists: lessons learnt.European radiology · 2014Article
- Breast cancer risk prediction model: a nomogram based on common mammographic screening findings.European radiology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to assess agreement of mammographic interpretations by community radiologists with consensus interpretations of an expert radiology panel to inform approaches that improve mammographic performance.
methodsFrom 6 mammographic registries, 119 community-based radiologists were recruited to assess 1 of 4 randomly assigned test sets of 109 screening mammograms with comparison studies for no recall or recall, giving the most significant finding type (mass, calcifications, asymmetric density, or architectural distortion) and location. The mean proportion of agreement with an expert radiology panel was calculated by cancer status, finding type, and difficulty level of identifying the finding at the patient, breast, and lesion level. Concordance in finding type between study radiologists and the expert panel was also examined. For each finding type, the proportion of unnecessary recalls, defined as study radiologist recalls that were not expert panel recalls, was determined.
resultsRecall agreement was 100% for masses and for examinations with obvious findings in both cancer and noncancer cases. Among cancer cases, recall agreement was lower for lesions that were subtle (50%) or asymmetric (60%). Subtle noncancer findings and benign calcifications showed 33% agreement for recall. Agreement for finding responsible for recall was low, especially for architectural distortions (43%) and asymmetric densities (40%). Most unnecessary recalls (51%) were asymmetric densities.
conclusionsAgreement in mammographic interpretation was low for asymmetric densities and architectural distortions. Training focused on these interpretations could improve the accuracy of mammography and reduce unnecessary recalls.
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.