ArticleEuropean radiology2016
Cross-national comparison of screening mammography accuracy measures in U.S., Norway, and Spain.
Article in European radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Optimising screening intervals and BI-RADS management pathways in ultrasound-based breast cancer screening: real-world evidence from Shenzhen (2018-2023).Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
- Review
- An updated overview of radiomics-based artificial intelligence (AI) methods in breast cancer screening and diagnosis.Radiological physics and technology · 2024Review
- Changes in Reader Performance During Sequential Reading of Breast Cancer Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Examinations.Radiology · 2024Observational
- Malmö Breast ImaginG database: objectives and development.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2023Article
- A YOLO-based AI system for classifying calcifications on spot magnification mammograms.Biomedical engineering online · 2023Article
- Experience of Pain and Unpleasantness during Mammography Screening: A Cross-Sectional Study on the Roles of Emotional, Cognitive, and Personality Factors.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence in BreastScreen Norway: a retrospective analysis of a cancer-enriched sample including 1254 breast cancer cases.European radiology · 2023Article
- Using deep learning to assist readers during the arbitration process: a lesion-based retrospective evaluation of breast cancer screening performance.European radiology · 2022Article
- A prospective evaluation of breast thermography enhanced by a novel machine learning technique for screening breast abnormalities in a general population of women presenting to a secondary care hospital.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2022Article
- Look how far we have come: BREAST cancer detection education on the international stage.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- AI-enhanced breast imaging: Where are we and where are we heading?European journal of radiology · 2021Review
- External validation of AI algorithms in breast radiology: the last healthcare security checkpoint?Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2021Article
- The "Sweet Spot" Revisited: Optimal Recall Rates for Cancer Detection With 2D and 3D Digital Screening Mammography in the Metro Chicago Breast Cancer Registry.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2021Article
- Frailty assessment of older adults, first-time applicants of public home care service in Norway.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2021Article
- Developing and validating an individualized breast cancer risk prediction model for women attending breast cancer screening.PloS one · 2021Article
- Differences in breast cancer risk after benign breast disease by type of screening diagnosis.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2020Article
- External Evaluation of 3 Commercial Artificial Intelligence Algorithms for Independent Assessment of Screening Mammograms.JAMA oncology · 2020Article
- Pros and cons for breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis - a review of the literature.Medicine and pharmacy reports · 2020Review
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 at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare accuracy measures for mammographic screening in Norway, Spain, and the US.
methodsInformation from women aged 50-69 years who underwent mammographic screening 1996-2009 in the US (898,418 women), Norway (527,464), and Spain (517,317) was included. Screen-detected cancer, interval cancer, and the false-positive rates, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) for recalls (PPV-1), PPV for biopsies (PPV-2), 1/PPV-1 and 1/PPV-2 were computed for each country. Analyses were stratified by age, screening history, time since last screening, calendar year, and mammography modality.
resultsThe rate of screen-detected cancers was 4.5, 5.5, and 4.0 per 1000 screening exams in the US, Norway, and Spain respectively. The highest sensitivity and lowest specificity were reported in the US (83.1 % and 91.3 %, respectively), followed by Spain (79.0 % and 96.2 %) and Norway (75.5 % and 97.1 %). In Norway, Spain and the US, PPV-1 was 16.4 %, 9.8 %, and 4.9 %, and PPV-2 was 39.4 %, 38.9 %, and 25.9 %, respectively. The number of women needed to recall to detect one cancer was 20.3, 6.1, and 10.2 in the US, Norway, and Spain, respectively.
conclusionsDifferences were found across countries, suggesting that opportunistic screening may translate into higher sensitivity at the cost of lower specificity and PPV. KEY POINTS: • Positive predictive value is higher in population-based screening programmes in Spain and Norway. • Opportunistic mammography screening in the US has lower positive predictive value. • Screening settings in the US translate into higher sensitivity and lower specificity. • The clinical burden may be higher for women screened opportunistically.
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.