ArticleInsights into imaging2019
Characterization of radiographers' mammography practice in five European countries: a pilot study.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Comercially Available AI-CAD Solution in Mammography Screening in Mexican Women (Mammo-MX Database).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Addressing Global Gaps in Mammography Screening for Improved Breast Cancer Detection: A Review of the Literature.Cureus · 2024Review
- Automatic and standardized quality assurance of digital mammography and tomosynthesis with deep convolutional neural networks.Insights into imaging · 2023Article
- Intra- and inter-rater reliability of compressed breast thickness, applied force, and pressure distribution in screening mammography.Acta radiologica open · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis pilot study aimed to characterize and compare radiographers' mammography practice, including quality control and continuous professional development in five European countries.
methodsOnline survey was performed to collect data regarding participants' profile, institution's profile, mammography practice, quality control and continuous professional development. The questionnaire was sent to clinical radiographers working in Estonia, Finland, Norway, Portugal and Switzerland. Descriptive statistical and subgroup analyzes were performed.
resultsThe amount of returned questionnaires was 140. Most respondents were female (92%), having radiography bachelor. The majority (89%) of radiographers was working with full-field digital mammography. The majority (97%) of mammography images were acquired using AEC, and half of the radiographers were using dose saving programmes suggested by the manufacturers. The most typical (50%) compression force ranged from 8 to 11 kg. Part of the radiographers (44%) did not know if their practice followed specific guidelines. The most challenging tasks in mammography identified by radiographers were patient positioning (86%), coping with pain (88%), managing anxiety (83%) and imaging breast implants (71%). The majority (88%) of the respondents undertook continuous professional development activities.
conclusionsThe mammography practice varies across the five countries. We found country-specific traits related to mammography image acquisition, patient-centered care and quality management procedures. The lack of evidence-based knowledge suggests the importance of well-designed studies on these topics. The variability found in this pilot study encourages radiographers to question their own practice and teachers to review and revise the training programmes. Validation in larger studies including more countries is needed.
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.