ArticleThe British journal of radiology2017
Intercountry analysis of breast density classification using visual grading.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Validation of an AI-driven Mammographic Breast Density Classification Tool Based on Radiologist Consensus.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2022Article
- Subjective Versus Quantitative Methods of Assessing Breast Density.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Automated mammographic density measurement using Quantra™: comparison with the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiology synoptic scale.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDisagreement in mammographic breast density (MBD) assessment can impact breast cancer risk stratification, choices of further breast cancer screening intervals and pathways. This study examines whether intercountry MBD expectations and assessment approaches are associated with differences in MBD assessment.
methods20 American Board of Radiology (ABR) examiners and 24 UK practitioners using the 4th edition BI-RADS
resultsStrong positive correlation was observed between the study cohorts on a binary scale (1-2 vs 3-4) [ABR examiners and RANZCR radiologists (ρ = 0.950); ABR examiners and UK practitioners (ρ = 0.940); and RANZCR radiologists and UK practitioners (ρ = 0.958)]. ABR and RANZCR radiologists demonstrated slight agreement [κ
conclusionFindings demonstrate wide international and interobserver variability in MBD assessment. This level of variability underscores the need for automation and standardization of MBD assessment. Advances in knowledge: Intercountry analysis of MBD assessment shows variations, with less variation on the binary scale than on the 4-point scale. With this level of variation, automation and standardization of MBD assessment becomes more appropriate.
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.