ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2020
Impact of Improved Screening Mammography Recall Lay Letter Readability on Patient Follow-Up.
Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Low Follow-Up Rates After a Total Hip Arthroplasty Prosthesis Recall.The Journal of arthroplasty · 2026Article
- The Use of ChatGPT-4.0 to Simplify Breast Pathology Reports: A Study on Readability and Accuracy.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- [Computed tomography coronary angiography : What does the nonradiologist expect from the radiologist?]Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- Patient-centered radiology: a roadmap for outpatient imaging.European radiology · 2024Review
- Patient Characteristics Impact Performance of AI Algorithm in Interpreting Negative Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Studies.Radiology · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Use of ChatGPT to Accurately Simplify Patient-centered Information about Breast Cancer Prevention and Screening.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence to Improve Patient Understanding of Radiology Reports.The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2023Review
- Addressing Disparities Related to Access of Multimodality Breast Imaging Services Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Academic radiology · 2022Review
- Delays in Follow-up Care for Abnormal Mammograms in Mobile Mammography Versus Fixed-Clinic Patients.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
- The added value of an artificial intelligence system in assisting radiologists on indeterminate BI-RADS 0 mammograms.European radiology · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn the setting of abnormal results on screening mammography, the Mammography Quality Standards Act mandates that patients receive a mailed "recall" lay letter informing them to return for additional follow-up imaging. The language used in this letter should be "easily understood by a lay person." In February 2019, the authors' institution revised the language of its recall lay letter to the sixth grade reading level. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of improved readability on patient follow-up rates.
methodsIn this retrospective study, data from all screening mammograms at a single institution with BI-RADS category 0 assessments excluding technical recalls between February 2018 to February 2019 (pre-intervention group) and February 2019 to February 2020 (post-intervention group) were reviewed. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of patients in each intervention group who returned for their diagnostic follow-up examination within 60 days (the standard recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was done to estimate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for follow-up within 60 days.
resultsThis study included 1,987 patients in the pre-intervention group and 2,211 patients in the post-intervention group. The patient follow-up rate within 60 days increased from 90.1% (1,790 of 1,987) in the pre-intervention group to 93.9% (2,076 of 2,211) in the post-intervention group (P < .001). When controlling for imaging site, patients in the post-intervention group had 1.96-fold increased odds of returning for a diagnostic follow-up examination within 60 days (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.53).
conclusionsRevising an institution's recall lay letter to a lower reading grade level significantly improved timely patient follow-up.
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.