ArticleAnnals of internal medicine2016
Factors Associated With Rates of False-Positive and False-Negative Results From Digital Mammography Screening: An Analysis of Registry Data.
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.
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.
Abbreviated MRI Protocol: Initial Experience With Dotarem® (Gadoterate Meglumine)
Who cites it
92 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 198 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Use of patient decision aids increased younger women's reluctance to begin screening mammography: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Radiation dose comparison of photon-counting breast CT and mammography: A phantom study.European journal of radiology open · 2026Article
- Integrin-Defined Plasma Extracellular Vesicles for Early Breast Cancer Detection and Bone Metastasis Association.ACS applied nano materials · 2026Article
- Zero-Shot Domain Adaptation of 2D Mammography Lesion Detection Model for 3D Breast CT Malignancy Detection.Cancers · 2026Article
- What is the significance of a new breast mass in women aged 40 or above? A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Detection ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of contrast-enhanced breast MRI in suspicious mammographic microcalcifications.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Mammography-based artificial intelligence for breast cancer detection, diagnosis, and BI-RADS categorization using multi-view and multi-level convolutional neural networks.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Accuracy of abbreviated magnetic resonance compared to 3-dimensional mammography and ultrasound in early detection of breast cancer.La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
- Multilayer analysis of ethnically diverse blood and urine biomarkers for breast cancer risk and prognosis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Factors associated with false-positive screening mammography in São Paulo, Brazil.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Impact of Changes in Artificial Intelligence-derived Case Scores over Time on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Outcomes.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Review
- Editorial: Breast cancer imaging: clinical translation of novel methods.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Article
- Radiomic analysis of cohort-specific diagnostic errors in reading dense mammograms using artificial intelligence.The British journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Association Between False-Positive Results and Return to Screening Mammography in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Cohort.Annals of internal medicine · 2024Article
- A Retrospective Analysis of Diagnostic Breast Imaging Outcomes in Young Women at a Tertiary Care Center.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- False negative breast cancers on imaging and associated risk factors: a single institution six-year analysis.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2024Article
32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.