ArticleThe British journal of radiology2018
Mammographic detection of breast cancer in a non-screening country.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2018. 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.
- Look how far we have come: BREAST cancer detection education on the international stage.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Improving radiologist's ability in identifying particular abnormal lesions on mammograms through training test set with immediate feedback.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Reader characteristics and mammogram features associated with breast imaging reporting scores.The British journal of radiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objective: To compare the diagnostic accuracy between radiologists' from a country with and without breast cancer screening.
methods: All participating radiologists gave informed consent. A test-set involving 60 mammographic cases (20 cancer and 40 non-cancer) were read by 11 radiologists from a non-screening (NS) country during a workshop in July 2016. 52 radiologists from a screening country read the same test-set at the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists' meetings in July 2015. The screening radiologists were classified into two groups: those with less than or equal to 5 years of experience; those with more than 5 years of experience, and each group was compared to the group of NS radiologists. A Kruskal-Wallis test followed by post-hoc multiple comparisons test were used to compare measures of diagnostic accuracy among the reader groups.
results: The diagnostic accuracy of the NS radiologists was significantly lower in terms of sensitivity [mean = 54.0; 95% confidence interval (CI) (40.0-67.0)], location sensitivity [mean = 26.0; 95% CI (16.0-37.0)], receive roperating characteristic area under curve [mean = 73.0; 95% CI (66.5-81.0)] and Jackknifefree-response receiver operating characteristics figure-of-merit [mean = 45.0; 95% CI (40.0-50.0)] when compared with the less and more experienced screening radiologists, whilst no difference in specificity [mean = 75.0; 95% CI (70.0- 81.0)] was found. No significant differences in all measured diagnostic accuracy were found between the two groups of screening radiologists.
conclusion: The mammographic performance of a group of radiologists from a country without screening program was suboptimal compared with radiologists from Australia. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: Identifying mammographic performance in developing countries is required to optimize breast cancer diagnosis.
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.