Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28980214›Full record

ArticleInsights into imaging2017

Breast cancer mammographic diagnosis performance in a public health institution: a retrospective cohort study.

Juliana M R B Mello, Fernando P Bittelbrunn, Marcio A B C Rockenbach, Guilherme G May, Leonardo M Vedolin, Marilia S Kruger, Matheus D Soldatelli, Guilherme Zwetsch, Gabriel T F de Miranda, Saone I P Teixeira and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Insights into imaging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 40% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Juliana M R B MelloRadiological Department, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA), 2350, Ramiro Barcelos St. Second floor, Porto Alegre, 90035-903, Brazil. jmrmello@hcpa.edu.br.
Fernando P BittelbrunnRadiological Department, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA), 2350, Ramiro Barcelos St. Second floor, Porto Alegre, 90035-903, Brazil.
Marcio A B C RockenbachRadiological Department, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA), 2350, Ramiro Barcelos St. Second floor, Porto Alegre, 90035-903, Brazil.
Guilherme G MayRadiological Department, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA), 2350, Ramiro Barcelos St. Second floor, Porto Alegre, 90035-903, Brazil.
Leonardo M VedolinRadiological Department, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA), 2350, Ramiro Barcelos St. Second floor, Porto Alegre, 90035-903, Brazil.
Marilia S KrugerRadiological Department, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA), 2350, Ramiro Barcelos St. Second floor, Porto Alegre, 90035-903, Brazil.
Matheus D SoldatelliRadiological Department, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA), 2350, Ramiro Barcelos St. Second floor, Porto Alegre, 90035-903, Brazil.
Guilherme ZwetschRadiological Department, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA), 2350, Ramiro Barcelos St. Second floor, Porto Alegre, 90035-903, Brazil.
Gabriel T F de MirandaRadiological Department, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA), 2350, Ramiro Barcelos St. Second floor, Porto Alegre, 90035-903, Brazil.
Saone I P TeixeiraRadiological Department, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA), 2350, Ramiro Barcelos St. Second floor, Porto Alegre, 90035-903, Brazil.
Bruna S ArrudaRadiological Department, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA), 2350, Ramiro Barcelos St. Second floor, Porto Alegre, 90035-903, Brazil.
Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the quality assurance of mammography results at a reference institution for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer in southern Brazil, based on the BIRADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) 5th edition recommendations for auditing purposes. MATERIALS AND

methodsRetrospective cohort and cross-sectional study with 4502 patients (9668 mammographies)) who underwent at least one or both breast mammographies throughout 2013 at a regional public hospital, linked to a federal public university. The results were followed until 31 December 2014, including true positives (TPs), true negatives (TNs), false positives (FPs), false negatives (FNs), positive predictive values (PPVs), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity and specificity, with a confidence interval of 95%.

resultsThe study showed high quality assurance, particularly regarding sensitivity (90.22%) and specificity (92.31%). The overall positive predictive value (PPV) was 65.35%, and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 98.32%. The abnormal interpretation rate (recall rate) was 12.26%.

conclusionsThe results are appropriate when compared to the values proposed by the BIRADS 5th edition. Additionally, the study provided self-reflection considering our radiological practice, which is essential for improvements and collaboration regarding breast cancer detection. It may stimulate better radiological practice performance and continuing education, despite possible infrastructure and facility limitations. MAIN MESSAGES: • Accurate quality performance rates are possible despite financial and governmental limitations. • Low-income institutions should develop standardised teamwork to improve radiological practice. • Regular mammography audits may help to increase the quality of public health systems.

Indexed as

Breast cancerMammography auditingPublic healthQuality assuranceSISMAMA

Identifiers

PMID28980214
PMCPMC5707220
OpenAlexW2761088858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.