Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26756902›Full record

ArticleAnnals of internal medicine2016

Factors Associated With Rates of False-Positive and False-Negative Results From Digital Mammography Screening: An Analysis of Registry Data.

Heidi D Nelson, Ellen S O'Meara, Karla Kerlikowske, Steven Balch, Diana Miglioretti

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of internal medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04341129 (Abbreviated MRI Protocol), which is not on this map. Cited by 92 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT04341129 early_phase1completednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Abbreviated MRI Protocol: Initial Experience With Dotarem® (Gadoterate Meglumine)

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of ChicagoRan2020 to 2023Enrolled50ConditionsBreast Neoplasms, Breast Diseases, Breast Fibroadenoma, Breast CancerArmsAbbreviated MRI protocol: initial experience with Dotarem® (Gadoterate Meglumine)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

92 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 198 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Detection ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Heidi D Nelson
Ellen S O'Meara
Karla Kerlikowske
Steven Balch
Diana Miglioretti
Providence Health & Services · USUniversity of California, Davis · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

Risk-based Imaging Strategies to Improve Breast Cancer Surveillance OutcomesP01CA154292 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI Diana L Miglioretti · 2011 to 2026
$52.9M
Vermont Screening Process Documentation UnitU54CA163303 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT & ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI SPRAGUE, BRIAN L · 2011 to 2017
$6.4M
NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201100031CNCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163303
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen screened with digital mammography may receive false-positive and false-negative results and subsequent imaging and biopsies. How these outcomes vary by age, time since the last screening, and individual risk factors is unclear.

objectiveTo determine factors associated with false-positive and false-negative digital mammography results, additional imaging, and biopsies among a general population of women screened for breast cancer.

designAnalysis of registry data.

settingParticipating facilities at 5 U.S. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium breast imaging registries with linkages to pathology databases and tumor registries. PATIENTS: 405,191 women aged 40 to 89 years screened with digital mammography between 2003 and 2011. A total of 2963 were diagnosed with invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ within 12 months of screening. MEASUREMENTS: Rates of false-positive and false-negative results and recommendations for additional imaging and biopsies from a single screening round; comparisons by age, time since the last screening, and risk factors.

resultsRates of false-positive results (121.2 per 1000 women [95% CI, 105.6 to 138.7]) and recommendations for additional imaging (124.9 per 1000 women [CI, 109.3 to 142.3]) were highest among women aged 40 to 49 years and decreased with increasing age. Rates of false-negative results (1.0 to 1.5 per 1000 women) and recommendations for biopsy (15.6 to 17.5 per 1000 women) did not differ greatly by age. Results did not differ by time since the last screening. False-positive rates were higher for women with risk factors, particularly family history of breast cancer; previous benign breast biopsy result; high breast density; and, for younger women, low body mass index. LIMITATIONS: Confounding by variation in patient-level characteristics and outcomes across registries and regions may have been present. Some factors, such as numbers of first- and second-degree relatives with breast cancer and diagnoses associated with previous benign biopsy results, were not examined.

conclusionFalse-positive mammography results and additional imaging are common, particularly for younger women and those with risk factors, whereas biopsies occur less often. Rates of false-negative results are low. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and National Cancer Institute.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsBiopsyBody Mass IndexBreastBreast DensityBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFalse Negative ReactionsFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansMammary Glands, Human

Identifiers

PMID26756902
PMCPMC5091936
OpenAlexW2287342701

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.