ArticleAcademic radiology2015
The influence of mammographic technologists on radiologists' ability to interpret screening mammograms in community practice.
Article in Academic radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Film-Screen Mammography in Population Screening: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021Pooled it
- The influence of breast density and key demographics of radiographers on mammography reporting performance - a pilot study.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2022Article
- Characterizing the Mammography Technologist Workforce in North Carolina.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectivesTo determine whether the mammographic technologist has an effect on the radiologists' interpretative performance of screening mammography in community practice. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this institutional review board-approved retrospective cohort study, we included Carolina Mammography Registry data from 372 radiologists and 356 mammographic technologists from 1994 to 2009 who performed 1,003,276 screening mammograms. Measures of interpretative performance (recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV1], and cancer detection rate [CDR]) were ascertained prospectively with cancer outcomes collected from the state cancer registry and pathology reports. To determine if the mammographic technologist influenced the radiologists' performance, we used mixed effects logistic regression models, including a radiologist-specific random effect and taking into account the clustering of examinations across women, separately for screen-film mammography (SFM) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM).
resultsOf the 356 mammographic technologists included, 343 performed 889,347 SFM examinations, 51 performed 113,929 FFDM examinations, and 38 performed both SFM and FFDM examinations. A total of 4328 cancers were reported for SFM and 564 cancers for FFDM. The technologists had a statistically significant effect on the radiologists' recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, and CDR for both SFM and FFDM (P values <.01). For PPV1, variability by technologist was observed for SFM (P value <.0001) but not for FFDM (P value = .088).
conclusionsThe interpretative performance of radiologists in screening mammography varies substantially by the technologist performing the examination. Additional studies should aim to identify technologist characteristics that may explain this variation.
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.