Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31559859›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2019

Can mammogram readers swiftly and effectively learn to interpret first post-contrast acquisition subtracted (FAST) MRI, a type of abbreviated breast MRI?: a single centre data-interpretation study.

Lyn I Jones, Rebecca Geach, Sam A Harding, Christopher Foy, Victoria Taylor, Andrea Marshall, Sian Taylor-Phillips, Janet A Dunn

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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

8 authors.

Lyn I JonesNorth Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Road, Westbury on Trym, Bristol BS10 5NB, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7439-7037
Rebecca GeachNorth Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Road, Westbury on Trym, Bristol BS10 5NB, UK.
Sam A HardingNorth Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Road, Westbury on Trym, Bristol BS10 5NB, UK.
Christopher FoyResearch Design Service South West Gloucester Office, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leadon House, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Gloucester GL1 3NN, UK.
Victoria TaylorNorth Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Road, Westbury on Trym, Bristol BS10 5NB, UK.
Andrea MarshallWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.
Sian Taylor-PhillipsWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.
Janet A DunnWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.

Funding

Department of Health 11/25/03Department of Health CDF-2016-09-018Department of Health PB-PG-1217-20008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess whether NHS breast screening programme (NHSBSP) mammogram readers could effectively interpret first post-contrast acquisition subtracted (FAST) MRI, for intended use in screening for breast cancer.

methodsEight NHSBSP mammogram readers from a single centre (four who also read breast MRI (Group 1) and four who do not (Group 2)) were given structured FAST MRI reader training (median 4 h: 32 min). They then prospectively interpreted 125 FAST MRIs (250 breasts: 194 normal and 56 cancer) comprising a consecutive series of screening MRIs enriched with additional cancer cases from 2015, providing 2000 interpretations. Readers were blinded to other readers' opinions and to clinical information. Categorisation followed the NHSBSP MRI reporting categorisation, with categories 4 and 5 considered indicative of cancer. Diagnostic accuracy (reference standard: histology or 2 years' follow-up) and agreement between readers were determined.

resultsThe accuracy achieved by Group 2 (847/1000 (85%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 82-87%)) was 5% less than that of Group 1 (898/1000 (90%; 95% CI 88-92)). Good inter-reader agreement was seen between both Group 1 readers (κ = 0.66; 95% CI 0.61-0.71) and Group 2 readers (κ = 0.63; 95% CI 0.58-0.68). The median time taken to interpret each FAST MRI was Group 1: 34 s (range 3-351) and Group 2: 77 s (range 11-321).

conclusionBrief structured training enabled multiprofessional mammogram readers to achieve similar accuracy at FAST MRI interpretation to consultant radiologists experienced at breast MRI interpretation. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: FAST MRI could be feasible from a training-the-workforce perspective for screening within NHSBSP.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyMammographyBreastBreast NeoplasmsConfidence IntervalsContrast MediaFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingProspective StudiesRadiologistsReference StandardsSensitivity and SpecificityTime FactorsContrast Media

Identifiers

PMID31559859
PMCPMC6913372

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.