ReviewThe British journal of radiology2016
Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?
Review in The British journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 93 citations in OpenAlex.
- Breast imaging with ultra-low field MRI.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparing Canada's OncoSim-Breast model with the United States' Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) breast cancer models.Health reports · 2025Article
- State-of-the-Art of Breast Cancer Diagnosis in Medical Images via Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs).Journal of healthcare informatics research · 2023Review
- The utilization of artificial intelligence applications to improve breast cancer detection and prognosis.Saudi medical journal · 2023Review
- The importance of multi-modal imaging and clinical information for humans and AI-based algorithms to classify breast masses (INSPiRED 003): an international, multicenter analysis.European radiology · 2022Article
- Quality of Informed Consent in Mammography Screening-The Polish Experience.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Ultrasound and Photoacoustic Imaging of Breast Cancer: Clinical Systems, Challenges, and Future Outlook.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Patient-Level Cancer Prediction Models From a Nationwide Patient Cohort: Model Development and Validation.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- Identifying normal mammograms in a large screening population using artificial intelligence.European radiology · 2021Article
- Importance of quality in breast cancer screening practice - a natural experiment in Alberta, Canada.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the accuracy of mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in suspect breast lesions.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2020Article
- Eye Movements in Medical Image Perception: A Selective Review of Past, Present and Future.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Article
- Quality of the screening process: An overlooked critical factor and an essential component of shared decision making about screening.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2019Article
- Screening: when things go wrong.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2018Article
- Article
- Wherein the authors attempt to minimize the confusion generated by their study "Breast cancer mortality after a diagnosis of ductal carcinomaCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2017Article
- Optimization of Image Quality and Dose in Digital Mammography.Journal of digital imaging · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The practice of investigating pathological abnormalities in the breasts of females who are asymptomatic is primarily employed using X-ray mammography. The importance of breast screening is reflected in the mortality-based benefits observed among females who are found to possess invasive breast carcinoma prior to the manifestation of clinical symptoms. It is estimated that population-based screening constitutes a 17% reduction in the breast cancer mortality rate among females affected by invasive breast carcinoma. In spite of the significant utility that screening confers in those affected by invasive cancer, limitations associated with screening manifest as potential harms affecting individuals who are free of invasive disease. Disease-free and benign tumour-bearing individuals who are subjected to diagnostic work-up following a screening examination constitute a population of cases referred to as false positives (FPs). This article discusses factors contributing to the FP rate in mammography and extends the discussion to an assessment of the consequences associated with FP reporting. We conclude that the mammography FP rate in North America is in excess based upon the observation of overtreatment of in situ lesions and the disproportionate distribution of detriment and benefit among the population of individuals recalled for diagnostic work-up subsequent to screening. To address the excessive incidence of FPs in mammography, we investigate solutions that may be employed to remediate the current status of the FP rate. Subsequently, it can be suggested that improvements in the breast-screening protocol, medical litigation risk, image interpretation software and the implementation of image acquisition modalities that overcome superimposition effects are promising solutions.
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.