ArticleEuropean journal of breast health2019
3D Automated Breast Ultrasound System: Comparison of Interpretation Time of Senior Versus Junior Radiologist.
Article in European journal of breast health, 2019. 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.
- Factors Associated with False-Positive Marks and False-Negative Cancers on Automated Breast Ultrasound Using an Artificial Intelligence-Based Computer-Aided Detection System.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating Efficiency of Time Use and Operational Costs in a Breast Clinic Workflow: A Comparative Analysis Between Automated Breast Ultrasound and Handheld Ultrasound.European journal of breast health · 2023Article
- Comparison between execution and reading time of 3D ABUS versus HHUS.La Radiologia medica · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the automated breast ultrasound system (ABUS) reading time of breast radiologist to a radiology resident independent of the clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred women who underwent screening ABUS between July and August 2017 were reviewed retrospectively. Each study was examined sequentially by a breast radiologist who has more than 20 years of experience in breast radiology and third year resident who has 6 months of experience in breast radiology. Data were analyzed with Spearman' correlation, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test and Kruskal-Wallis Test and was recorded.
resultsThe mean age of patients was 42.02±11.423 years (age range16-66). The average time for senior radiologist was 223.36±84.334 seconds (min 118 max 500 seconds). The average time for junior radiologist was 269.48±82.895 seconds (min 150 max 628 seconds). There was a significant difference between the mean time of two radiologists (p=0.00001). There was a significant difference regarding the decrease in the reading time throughout study with the increase of number of cases read by the breast radiologist (p<0.05); but not with the resident radiologist (p=0.687). There was a correlation between BI-RADS category and reading time for both the breast radiologist and the resident (p=0.002, p=0.00043 respectively) indicating that patients who had findings caused longer reading times.
conclusionABUS reading time may differ according to the experience of the user, however the times of an experienced and non-experienced user is comparable.
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.