Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26537932›Full record

ArticleJournal of digital imaging2016

Impact of the Introduction of Digital Mammography in an Organized Screening Program on the Recall and Detection Rate.

Cinzia Campari, Paolo Giorgi Rossi, Carlo Alberto Mori, Sara Ravaioli, Andrea Nitrosi, Rita Vacondio, Pamela Mancuso, Antonella Cattani, Pierpaolo Pattacini

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. [Digital Mammography as a Screening Tool in Korea].Taehan Yongsang Uihakhoe chi · 2021
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A blood screening test for Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2016
    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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cinzia CampariStaff Programmazione e Controllo, AUSL Reggio Emilia, Via Amendola 2, 42122, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Paolo Giorgi RossiIRCCS, Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova, Viale Umberto I 50, 42123, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Carlo Alberto MoriDipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, IRCCS-Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova, Viale Umberto I 50, 42123, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Sara RavaioliDipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, IRCCS-Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova, Viale Umberto I 50, 42123, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Andrea NitrosiFisica Medica, IRCCS-Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova, Viale Umberto I 50, 42123, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Rita VacondioDipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, IRCCS-Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova, Viale Umberto I 50, 42123, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Pamela MancusoIRCCS, Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova, Viale Umberto I 50, 42123, Reggio Emilia, Italy. pamela.mancuso@ausl.re.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1609-2440
Antonella CattaniStaff Programmazione e Controllo, AUSL Reggio Emilia, Via Amendola 2, 42122, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Pierpaolo PattaciniDipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, IRCCS-Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova, Viale Umberto I 50, 42123, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Ospedale Santa Maria · ITAzienda Sanitaria Unità Locale di Reggio Emilia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2012, the Reggio Emilia Breast Cancer Screening Program introduced digital mammography in all its facilities at the same time. The aim of this work is to analyze the impact of digital mammography introduction on the recall rate, detection rate, and positive predictive value. The program actively invites women aged 45-74 years. We included women screened in 2011, all of whom underwent film-screen mammography, and all women screened in 2012, all of whom underwent digital mammography. Double reading was used for all mammograms, with arbitration in the event of disagreement. A total of 42,240 women underwent screen-film mammography and 45,196 underwent digital mammography. The recall rate increased from 3.3 to 4.4% in the first year of digital mammography (relative recall adjusted by age and round 1.46, 95% CI = 1.37-1.56); the positivity rate for each individual reading, before arbitration, rose from 3 to 5.7%. The digital mammography recall rate decreased during 2012: after 12 months, it was similar to the recall rate with screen-film mammography. The detection rate was similar: 5.9/1000 and 5.2/1000 with screen-film and digital mammography, respectively (adjusted relative detection rate 0.95, 95% CI = 0.79-1.13). The relative detection rate for ductal carcinoma in situ remained the same. The introduction of digital mammography to our organized screening program had a negative impact on specificity, thereby increasing the recall rate. The effect was limited to the first 12 months after introduction and was attenuated by the double reading with arbitration. We did not observe any relevant effects on the detection rate.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsFalse Negative ReactionsFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningBreast cancerCancer screeningDigital mammographyMammographySpecificity

Identifiers

PMID26537932
PMCPMC4788614
OpenAlexW2309205715

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.