ArticleBMC cancer2015
Radiographers supporting radiologists in the interpretation of screening mammography: a viable strategy to meet the shortage in the number of radiologists.
Article in BMC cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Assessing the barriers and enablers to the implementation of the diagnostic radiographer musculoskeletal X-ray reporting service within the NHS in England: a systematic literature review.BMC health services research · 2023Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence for breast cancer prevention: the vision ahead.European radiology · 2026Review
- Global disparities in artificial intelligence-based mammogram interpretation for breast cancer: A scientometric analysis of representation, trends, and equity.European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2025Article
- Addressing Global Gaps in Mammography Screening for Improved Breast Cancer Detection: A Review of the Literature.Cureus · 2024Review
- A novel approach toward skin cancer classification through fused deep features and neutrosophic environment.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- The influence of breast density and key demographics of radiographers on mammography reporting performance - a pilot study.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2022Article
- MRI interobserver reliability in rectal tumor angulation.Acta radiologica open · 2022Article
- The Lancet Commission on diagnostics: transforming access to diagnostics.Lancet (London, England) · 2021Review
- DeepCAT: Deep Computer-Aided Triage of Screening Mammography.Journal of digital imaging · 2021Article
- Prioritization of Patients with Abnormal Breast Findings in the Alerta Rosa Navigation Program to Reduce Diagnostic Delays.The oncologist · 2020Article
- Article
- Radiography Advanced Practice in the United Arab Emirates: The Perceptions and Readiness of Mammographers.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2020Article
- Errors in Mammography Cannot be Solved Through Technology AloneAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2018Review
- Digital Mammography in Young Women: Is a Single View Sufficient?Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAn alternative approach to the traditional model of radiologists interpreting screening mammography is necessary due to the shortage of radiologists to interpret screening mammograms in many countries.
methodsWe evaluated the performance of 15 Mexican radiographers, also known as radiologic technologists, in the interpretation of screening mammography after a 6 months training period in a screening setting. Fifteen radiographers received 6 months standardized training with radiologists in the interpretation of screening mammography using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) system. A challenging test set of 110 cases developed by the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium was used to evaluate their performance. We estimated sensitivity, specificity, false positive rates, likelihood ratio of a positive test (LR+) and the area under the subject-specific Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for diagnostic accuracy. A mathematical model simulating the consequences in costs and performance of two hypothetical scenarios compared to the status quo in which a radiologist reads all screening mammograms was also performed.
resultsRadiographer's sensitivity was comparable to the sensitivity scores achieved by U.S. radiologists who took the test but their false-positive rate was higher. Median sensitivity was 73.3 % (Interquartile range, IQR: 46.7-86.7 %) and the median false positive rate was 49.5 % (IQR: 34.7-57.9 %). The median LR+ was 1.4 (IQR: 1.3-1.7 %) and the median AUC was 0.6 (IQR: 0.6-0.7). A scenario in which a radiographer reads all mammograms first, and a radiologist reads only those that were difficult for the radiographer, was more cost-effective than a scenario in which either the radiographer or radiologist reads all mammograms.
conclusionsGiven the comparable sensitivity achieved by Mexican radiographers and U.S. radiologists on a test set, screening mammography interpretation by radiographers appears to be a possible adjunct to radiologists in countries with shortages of radiologists. Further studies are required to assess the effectiveness of different training programs in order to obtain acceptable screening accuracy, as well as the best approaches for the use of non-physician readers to interpret screening mammography.
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.