ArticleDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)
Impact of an abbreviated protocol for breast MRI in diagnostic accuracy.
Article in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Diagnostic Accuracy of an Abbreviated vs. a Full MRI Breast Protocol in Detecting Breast Lobular Carcinoma: A Single-Center ROC Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Accuracy of abbreviated magnetic resonance compared to 3-dimensional mammography and ultrasound in early detection of breast cancer.La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
- Comparing the diagnostic accuracy, reading time, and inter-rater agreement of breast MRI abbreviated and full protocols: a multi-reader study.Acta radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987) · 2024Article
- Abbreviated MRI for Preoperative Assessment of Breast Cancer: is Maximal Intensity Projection (MIP) of the First Post Contrast Acquisition Subtracted (Fast) Sequence Sufficient for Disease Evaluation?Journal of cancer science and clinical therapeutics · 2022Article
- A Concise Review on the Utilization of Abbreviated Protocol Breast MRI over Full Diagnostic Protocol in Breast Cancer Detection.International journal of biomedical imaging · 2022Review
- Abbreviated MR Protocols for Chronic Liver Disease and Liver Cancer.Magnetic resonance imaging clinics of North America · 2021Review
- Abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: A systematic review of literature.European journal of radiology open · 2021Review
- Abbreviated MR Imaging for Breast Cancer.Radiologic clinics of North America · 2021Review
- Breast cancer screening programs: does one risk fit all?Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2020Article
- Diagnostic performance of abbreviated breast MRI for screening of women with previously treated breast cancer.Medicine · 2020Article
- Abbreviated MRI of the Breast: Does It Provide Value?Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2019Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy and interpretation time of an abbreviated protocol relative to the complete protocol of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with the use of breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Between-reader and between-protocol variability for BI-RADS classification and influence of reader expertise on diagnostic accuracies were also evaluated.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective reader study in 90 women who underwent breast MRI: 30 benign examinations (graded as American College of Radiology [ACR] 1 or 2), 30 examinations graded as ACR 3 and 30 examinations requiring a histologic proof (graded as ACR 4 or 5). Two radiologists independently reviewed the protocols. The reference standard was 24 months of imaging follow-up (66.6%, n=60), percutaneous biopsy at the 12th month imaging follow-up (5.5%, n=5), and breast surgery (27.9%, n=25). Analysis was done on a per-breast basis. There were 26 cancers in 168 breasts (15.1%)
resultsInterpretation time was higher for the complete protocol (mean difference: 84 s, 95% CI [67;101] for senior and 83 s, 95% CI [70;95] for junior reader; P < 0.001). The reliability of BI-RADS classification between both protocols was very good with intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.89 for junior reader and 0.98 for senior reader; the inter-reader reliability was 0.94 and 0.90 for the complete and abbreviated protocols, respectively. For senior reader, the abbreviated and complete protocols yielded 95.1% and 94.4% specificity and 100% sensitivity.
conclusionOur data provide corroborating evidence that abbreviated protocols decrease interpretation time without compromising sensitivity or specificity. There was a high level of concordance between the abbreviated and complete protocols and between the two readers.
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.