ArticleThe British journal of radiology2020
Reader characteristics and mammogram features associated with breast imaging reporting scores.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Breast cancer detection across dense and non-dense breasts: Markers of diagnostic confidence and efficacy.Acta radiologica open · 2022Article
- Look how far we have come: BREAST cancer detection education on the international stage.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to explore the reading performances of radiologists in detecting cancers on mammograms using Tabar Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) classification and identify factors related to breast imaging reporting scores.
methods117 readings of five different mammogram test sets with each set containing 20 cancer and 40 normal cases were performed by Australian radiologists. Each radiologist evaluated the mammograms using the BIRADS lexicon with category 1 - negative, category 2 - benign findings, category 3 - equivocal findings (Recall), category 4 - suspicious findings (Recall), and category 5 - highly suggestive of malignant findings (Recall). Performance metrics (true positive, false positive, true negative, and false negative) were calculated for each radiologist and the distribution of reporting categories was analyzed in reader-based and case-based groups. The association of reader characteristics and case features among categories was examined using Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests.
results38% of cancer-containing mammograms were reported with category 3 which decreased to 32.3% with category 4 and 16.2% with category 5 while 16.6 and 10.3% of cancer cases were marked with categories 1 and 2. Female readers had less false-negative rates when using categories 1 and 2 for cancer cases than male readers (
conclusionsMost radiologists used category 3 when reporting cancer mammograms. Gender, working for BreastScreen, fellowship completion, and number of cases read per week were factors associated with scoring selection. Radiologists reported higher Tabar BIRADS category for specific types of abnormalities on mammograms than others. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The study identified factors associated with the decision of radiologists in assigning a BIRADS Tabar score for mammograms with abnormality. These findings will be useful for individual training programs to improve the confidence of radiologists in recognizing abnormal lesions on screening mammograms.
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.