Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26204300›Full record

ArticleAJR. American journal of roentgenology2015

Patient and Radiologist Characteristics Associated With Accuracy of Two Types of Diagnostic Mammograms.

Sara L Jackson, Linn Abraham, Diana L Miglioretti, Diana S M Buist, Karla Kerlikowske, Tracy Onega, Patricia A Carney, Edward A Sickles, Joann G Elmore

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Errors in Mammography Cannot be Solved Through Technology AloneAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2018
    Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Sara L Jackson1 Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Washington, 325 Ninth Ave, Seattle, WA 98104.
Linn Abraham2 Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, WA.
Diana L Miglioretti2 Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, WA.
Diana S M Buist2 Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, WA.
Karla Kerlikowske4 Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Tracy Onega5 Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.
Patricia A Carney6 Departments of Family Medicine and Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR.
Edward A Sickles4 Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Joann G Elmore1 Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Washington, 325 Ninth Ave, Seattle, WA 98104.

Funding

Understanding Variability in Community MammographyR01CA107623 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ELMORE, JOANN G · 2004 to 2008
$3.7M
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 CA107623PHS HHS HHSN261201100031C
6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical CompetenceBreast NeoplasmsDiagnosis, DifferentialFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansMammographyPractice Patterns, Physicians'RegistriesRisk FactorsSensitivity and SpecificitySurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Statesaccuracycharacteristicsdiagnostic mammographypatientradiologist

Identifiers

PMID26204300
PMCPMC4809354

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.