ArticleIrish journal of medical science2019
Breast cancers missed by screening radiologists can be detected by reading mammograms at a distance.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDuring locally organized quality assurance evaluation sessions for screening radiologists, we noticed that individual screening radiologists did miss tumours which in our opinion could be detected at a distance.
aimTo determine whether tumours missed by individual screening radiologists can be detected at a distance.
methodsTwenty-eight screening mammograms of 28 females (mean age 63 years, range 49-73) with a pathologically proven malignant tumour missed by individual screening radiologists were mixed with 56 normal screening mammograms of 56 females (mean age 63 years, range 53-74). This test set was independently assessed by a senior screening radiologist and by a radiology resident without prior training in screening mammography at 1.5 m distance from the screen display. Readers were unaware of the prevalence of pathologically proven malignant tumours in the test set. Primary outcome was whether the reader would recall the woman.
resultsThe senior screening radiologist recalled 28 of 28 women with a pathologically proven malignant tumour (sensitivity of 100%) and 16 of 56 women without pathology (specificity of 71%). The radiology resident recalled 25 of 28 women with a pathologically proven malignant tumour (sensitivity of 89%) and 10 of 56 women without pathology (specificity of 82%).
conclusionSome malignant tumours missed by an individual screening radiologist can be detected from 1.5 m distance. Therefore, we recommend that screening radiologists consciously take a distant view before closely evaluating the mammogram in detail.
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.