ArticleAJR. American journal of roentgenology2015
Patient and Radiologist Characteristics Associated With Accuracy of Two Types of Diagnostic Mammograms.
Article in AJR. American journal of roentgenology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does the availability of prior mammograms improve radiologists' observer performance?-a scoping review.BJR open · 2023Article
- A machine learning model based on readers' characteristics to predict their performances in reading screening mammograms.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2022Article
- ACR BI-RADS Assessment Category 4 Subdivisions in Diagnostic Mammography: Utilization and Outcomes in the National Mammography Database.Radiology · 2018Article
- Errors in Mammography Cannot be Solved Through Technology AloneAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2018Review
- Performance of a subsidised mammographic screening programme in Malaysia, a middle-income Asian country.BMC public health · 2017Article
- How Many of the Biopsy Decisions Taken at Inexperienced Breast Radiology Units Were Correct?The journal of breast health · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveEarlier studies of diagnostic mammography found wide unexplained variability in accuracy among radiologists. We assessed patient and radiologist characteristics associated with the interpretive performance of two types of diagnostic mammography. MATERIALS AND
methodsRadiologists interpreting mammograms in seven regions of the United States were invited to participate in a survey that collected information on their demographics, practice setting, breast imaging experience, and self-reported interpretive volume. Survey data from 244 radiologists were linked to data on 274,401 diagnostic mammograms performed for additional evaluation of a recent abnormal screening mammogram or to evaluate a breast problem, between 1998 and 2008. These data were also linked to patients' risk factors and follow-up data on breast cancer. We measured interpretive performance by false-positive rate, sensitivity, and AUC. Using logistic regression, we evaluated patient and radiologist characteristics associated with false-positive rate and sensitivity for each diagnostic mammogram type.
resultsMammograms performed for additional evaluation of a recent mammogram had an overall false-positive rate of 11.9%, sensitivity of 90.2%, and AUC of 0.894; examinations done to evaluate a breast problem had an overall false-positive rate of 7.6%, sensitivity of 83.9%, and AUC of 0.871. Multiple patient characteristics were associated with measures of interpretive performance, and radiologist academic affiliation was associated with higher sensitivity for both indications for diagnostic mammograms.
conclusionThese results indicate the potential for improved radiologist training, using evaluation of their own performance relative to best practices, and for improved clinical outcomes with health care system changes to maximize access to diagnostic mammography interpretation in academic settings.
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.