ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2017
Challenges With Identifying Indication for Examination in Breast Imaging as a Key Clinical Attribute in Practice, Research, and Policy.
Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of self-reported exam indications for breast cancer screening.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2025Article
- Multimodal integration strategies for clinical application in oncology.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Facility Variability in Examination Indication Among Women With Prior Breast Cancer: Implications and the Need for Standardization.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2020Article
- Evaluating Screening Participation, Follow-up, and Outcomes for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer in the PROSPR Consortium.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2020Article
- Diffusion of digital breast tomosynthesis among women in primary care: associations with insurance type.Cancer medicine · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess indication for examination for four breast imaging modalities and describe the complexity and heterogeneity of data sources and ascertainment methods.
methodsIndication was evaluated among the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) breast cancer research centers (PRCs). Indication data were reported overall and separately for four breast imaging modalities: digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
resultsThe breast PRCs contributed 236,262 women with 607,735 breast imaging records from 31 radiology facilities. We found a high degree of heterogeneity for indication within and across six data sources. Structured codes within a data source were used most often to identify indication for mammography (59% DM, 85% DBT) and text analytics for US (45%) and MRI (44%). Indication could not be identified for 17% of US and 26% of MRI compared with 2% of mammography examinations (1% DM, 3% DBT).
conclusionsMultiple and diverse data sources, heterogeneity of ascertainment methods, and nonstandardization of codes within and across data systems for determining indication were found. Consideration of data sources and standardized methodology for determining indication is needed to assure accurate measurement of cancer screening rates and performance in clinical practice and research.
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.