Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31287719›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2019

Visual search in breast imaging.

Ziba Gandomkar, Claudia Mello-Thoms

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Errors in visual search: Are they stochastic or deterministic?Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors.

Ziba GandomkarBreastScreen Reader Assessment Strategy (BREAST), Discipline of Medical Imaging Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Claudia Mello-ThomsDepartment of Radiology, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, US.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among females worldwide and large volumes of breast images are produced and interpreted annually. As long as radiologists interpret these images, the diagnostic accuracy will be limited by human factors and both false-positive and false-negative errors might occur. By understanding visual search in breast images, we may be able to identify causes of diagnostic errors, find ways to reduce them, and also provide a better education to radiology residents. Many visual search studies in breast radiology have been devoted to mammography. These studies showed that 70% of missed lesions on mammograms attract radiologists' visual attention and that a plethora of different reasons, such as satisfaction of search, incorrect background sampling, and incorrect first impression can cause diagnostic errors in the interpretation of mammograms. Recently, highly accurate tools, which rely on both eye-tracking data and the content of the mammogram, have been proposed to provide feedback to the radiologists. Improving these tools and determining the optimal pathway to integrate them in the radiology workflow could be a possible line of future research. Moreover, in the past few years deep learning has led to improving diagnostic accuracy of computerized diagnostic tools and visual search studies will be required to understand how radiologists interact with the prompts from these tools, and to identify the best way to utilize them. Visual search in other breast imaging modalities, such as breast ultrasound and digital breast tomosynthesis, have so far received less attention, probably due to associated complexities of eye-tracking monitoring and analysing the data. For example, in digital breast tomosynthesis, scrolling through the image results in longer trials, adds a new factor to the study's complexity and makes calculation of gaze parameters more difficult. However, considering the wide utilization of three-dimensional imaging modalities, more visual search studies involving reading stack-view examinations are required in the future. To conclude, in the past few decades visual search studies provided extensive understanding about underlying reasons for diagnostic errors in breast radiology and characterized differences between experts' and novices' visual search patterns. Further visual search studies are required to investigate radiologists' interaction with relatively newer imaging modalities and artificial intelligence tools.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ErrorsRadiologistsAttentionBreastBreast NeoplasmsDeep LearningDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMammographyPattern Recognition, VisualResearchUltrasonography, Mammary

Identifiers

PMID31287719
PMCPMC6774588

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.