Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24960110›Full record

ArticleRadiology2014

Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance.

Diana S M Buist, Melissa L Anderson, Robert A Smith, Patricia A Carney, Diana L Miglioretti, Barbara S Monsees, Edward A Sickles, Stephen H Taplin, Berta M Geller, Bonnie C Yankaskas and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Racial and Ethnic Variation in Diagnostic Mammography Performance among Women Reporting a Breast Lump.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Observational
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Errors in Mammography Cannot be Solved Through Technology AloneAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2018
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.

Diana S M BuistFrom the Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, 1730 Minor Ave, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98101 (D.S.M.B., M.L.A., D.L.M.); Cancer Control Science Department, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Ga (R.A.S.); Departments of Family Medicine and Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Ore (P.A.C.); Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Wash (D.L.M.); Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Mo (B.S.M.); Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, Calif (E.A.S.); Division of Cancer Control and Population Science, Behavioral Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md (S.H.T.); Department of Family Medicine, University of Vermont, College of Medicine, Burlington, Vt (B.M.G.); Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC (B.C.Y.); and Department of Community and Family Medicine, Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH (T.L.O.).
Melissa L Anderson
Robert A Smith
Patricia A Carney
Diana L Miglioretti
Barbara S Monsees
Edward A Sickles
Stephen H Taplin
Berta M Geller
Bonnie C Yankaskas
Tracy L Onega
Group Health Cooperative · USAmerican Cancer Society · USDartmouth College · USNational Institutes of Health · USOregon Health & Science University · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USUniversity of Vermont · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

Statistical Coordinating Center for the Breast Cancer Surveillance ConsortiumU01CA086076 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI MIGLIORETTI, DIANA L · 2000 to 2011
$8.5M
IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF MAMMOGRAPHIC INTERPRETATIONU01CA063731 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI BUIST, DIANA SM · 1994 to 2011
$6.7M
VERMONT BREAST CANCER SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMU01CA070013 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT &ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI GELLER, BERTA M · 1995 to 2011
$6.7M
UTILITY AND OUTCOMES FROM MAMMOGRAPHY IN NORTH CAROLINAU01CA070040 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI YANKASKAS, BONNIE C · 1995 to 2011
$6.4M
San Francisco Mammography Registry-A Research SourceU01CA063740 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI KERLIKOWSKE, KARLA M · 1994 to 2011
$6.2M
STRATEGIC STUDIES IN BREAST CANCER SURVEILLANCEU01CA086082 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI ONEGA, TRACY · 2000 to 2011
$4.9M
Understanding Variability in Community MammographyR01CA107623 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ELMORE, JOANN G · 2004 to 2008
$3.7M
REFERRAL PATTERNS AND COST ANALYSIS OF SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY--FOLLOW-UP/BIOPSYU01CA063736 · NCI · COOPER INSTITUTE · PI CUTTER, GARY · 1994 to 2004
$2.7M
NEW MEXICO MAMMOGRAPHY PROJECTU01CA069976 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO · PI ROSENBERG, ROBERT D · 1995 to 2005
$2.7M
Improving Accuracy &Outcomes of Breast Cancer ScreeningK05CA104699 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ELMORE, JOANN G · 2004 to 2014
$1.2M
NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201100031CNCI NIH HHS K05 CA104699NCI NIH HHS R01 CA107623NCI NIH HHS U01 CA063731NCI NIH HHS U01 CA063736NCI NIH HHS U01 CA063740NCI NIH HHS U01 CA069976NCI NIH HHS U01 CA070013NCI NIH HHS U01 CA070040NCI NIH HHS U01 CA086076NCI NIH HHS U01 CA086082
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo examine radiologists' screening performance in relation to the number of diagnostic work-ups performed after abnormal findings are discovered at screening mammography by the same radiologist or by different radiologists. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn an institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant study, the authors linked 651 671 screening mammograms interpreted from 2002 to 2006 by 96 radiologists in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium to cancer registries (standard of reference) to evaluate the performance of screening mammography (sensitivity, false-positive rate [ FPR false-positive rate ], and cancer detection rate [ CDR cancer detection rate ]). Logistic regression was used to assess the association between the volume of recalled screening mammograms ("own" mammograms, where the radiologist who interpreted the diagnostic image was the same radiologist who had interpreted the screening image, and "any" mammograms, where the radiologist who interpreted the diagnostic image may or may not have been the radiologist who interpreted the screening image) and screening performance and whether the association between total annual volume and performance differed according to the volume of diagnostic work-up.

resultsAnnually, 38% of radiologists performed the diagnostic work-up for 25 or fewer of their own recalled screening mammograms, 24% performed the work-up for 0-50, and 39% performed the work-up for more than 50. For the work-up of recalled screening mammograms from any radiologist, 24% of radiologists performed the work-up for 0-50 mammograms, 32% performed the work-up for 51-125, and 44% performed the work-up for more than 125. With increasing numbers of radiologist work-ups for their own recalled mammograms, the sensitivity (P = .039), FPR false-positive rate (P = .004), and CDR cancer detection rate (P < .001) of screening mammography increased, yielding a stepped increase in women recalled per cancer detected from 17.4 for 25 or fewer mammograms to 24.6 for more than 50 mammograms. Increases in work-ups for any radiologist yielded significant increases in FPR false-positive rate (P = .011) and CDR cancer detection rate (P = .001) and a nonsignificant increase in sensitivity (P = .15). Radiologists with a lower annual volume of any work-ups had consistently lower FPR false-positive rate , sensitivity, and CDR cancer detection rate at all annual interpretive volumes.

conclusionThese findings support the hypothesis that radiologists may improve their screening performance by performing the diagnostic work-up for their own recalled screening mammograms and directly receiving feedback afforded by means of the outcomes associated with their initial decision to recall. Arranging for radiologists to work up a minimum number of their own recalled cases could improve screening performance but would need systems to facilitate this workflow.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPopulation SurveillancePractice Patterns, Physicians'RegistriesSEER ProgramSensitivity and SpecificityUnited StatesWorkload

Identifiers

PMID24960110
PMCPMC4334307
OpenAlexW2118583240

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.