ArticleBiomedical journal of scientific & technical research2022
Value of BI-RADS 3 Audits.
Article in Biomedical journal of scientific & technical research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Current State of Timeliness in the Breast Cancer Diagnosis Journey: Abnormal Screening to Biopsy.Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR · 2023Review
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
Abstract
Objectives: BI-RADS 3 is an established assessment category in which the probability of malignancy is equal to or less than 2%. However, monitoring adherence to imaging criteria can be challenging and there are few established benchmarks for auditing BI-RADS 3 assignments. In this study, we explore some parameters that could serve as useful tools for quality control and clinical practice management. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study covered a 4-year period (Jan 2014-Dec 2017) and included all women over 40 years who were recalled from a screening exam and had an initial assignment of BI-RADS 3 (probably benign) category after diagnostic workup. A follow-up period of 2 years following the assignment of BI-RADS 3 was used for quantitative quality control metrics. Results: Among 135,765 screening exams, 13,453 were recalled and 1,037 BI-RADS 3 cases met inclusion criteria. The follow-up rate at 24 months was 86.7%. The upgrade rate was 7.4% (77/1,037) [CI: 5.9-9.2%] and the PPV3 was 33.8% (26/77) [CI: 23.4-45.5%]. The cancer yield was 2.51% (26/1,037) [CI: 1.64-3.65%] and did not differ (p=0. 243) from the 2% probability of malignancy. The initial BI-RADS3 per screening exam and per recall from screening were 0.76% (1,037/135,765) [CI: 0.72-0.81%] and 7.7% (1,037/13,453) [CI: 7.26-8.17%], respectively. Conclusion: Regular audit of BIRADS 3 metrics has the potential to provide additional insights for clinical practice management. Data from varied clinical settings with input from an expert committee could help establish benchmarks for these metrics.
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.