Observational studyEuropean radiology2015
Value of audits in breast cancer screening quality assurance programmes.
Observational study in European radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applying the "positive predictive value-recall diagram" to monitor performance and provide recommendations for screening radiologists.European radiology · 2026Article
- Test-set results can predict participants' development in breast-screen cancer detection: An observational cohort study.Health science reports · 2024Article
- Interval cancer audit and disclosure in breast screening programmes: An international survey.Journal of medical screening · 2023Article
- Radiological review of prior screening mammograms of screen-detected breast cancer.European radiology · 2021Article
- Breast cancer mammographic diagnosis performance in a public health institution: a retrospective cohort study.Insights into imaging · 2017Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOur aim was to retrospectively evaluate the results of all audits performed in the past and to assess their value in the quality assurance of the Dutch breast cancer screening programme.
methodsThe audit team of the Dutch Reference Centre for Screening (LRCB) conducts triennial audits of all 17 reading units. During audits, screening outcomes like recall rates and detection rates are assessed and a radiological review is performed. This study investigates and compares the results of four audit series: 1996-2000, 2001-2005, 2003-2007 and 2010-2013.
resultsThe analysis shows increased recall rates (from 0.66%, 1.07%, 1.22% to 1.58%), increased detection rates (from 3.3, 4.5, 4.8 to 5.4 per 1000) and increased sensitivity (from 64.5%, 68.7%, 70.5% to 71.6%), over the four audit series. The percentage of 'missed cancers' among interval cancers and advanced screen-detected cancers did not change (p = 0.4).
conclusionsOur audits not only provide an opportunity for assessing screening outcomes, but also provide moments of self-reflection with peers. For radiologists, an accurate understanding of their performance is essential to identify points of improvement. We therefore recommend a radiological review of screening examinations and immediate feedback as part of an audit. KEY POINTS: • Radiological review and immediate feedback are recommended as part of an audit. • For breast screening radiologists, audits provide moments of self-reflection with peers. • Radiological review of screening examinations provides insights in recall behaviour. • Accurate understanding of radiologists' performance is essential to identify points of improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25903711What 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.