ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2023
Prioritizing Screening Mammograms for Immediate Interpretation and Diagnostic Evaluation on the Basis of Risk for Recall.
Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using Artificial Intelligence to Improve Timeliness of Follow-Up in Breast Cancer Screening.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2026Article
- Patient and Public Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Breast Imaging and Clinical Decision-Making: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Survey Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Patient, facility, and community determinants of timely follow up after abnormal screening mammograms in Appalachia: A multilevel analysis.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2026Article
- Real-time peri-operative microcalcification detection in superficial breast tissues.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Risk-Stratified Screening: A Simulation Study of Scheduling Templates on Daily Mammography Recalls.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2025Article
- Association Between False-Positive Results and Return to Screening Mammography in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Cohort.Annals of internal medicine · 2024Article
- Screening mammography performance according to breast density: a comparison between radiologists versus standalone intelligence detection.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2024Article
- Integrating AI into Clinical Workflows: A Simulation Study on Implementing AI-aided Same-day Diagnostic Testing Following an Abnormal Screening Mammogram.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024Article
- A population-based survey of self-reported delays in breast, cervical, colorectal and lung cancer screening.Preventive medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to develop a prioritization strategy for scheduling immediate screening mammographic interpretation and possible diagnostic evaluation.
methodsA population-based cohort with screening mammograms performed from 2012 to 2020 at 126 radiology facilities from 7 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries was identified. Classification trees identified combinations of clinical history (age, BI-RADS® density, time since prior mammogram, history of false-positive recall or biopsy result), screening modality (digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis), and facility characteristics (profit status, location, screening volume, practice type, academic affiliation) that grouped screening mammograms by recall rate, with ≥12/100 considered high and ≥16/100 very high. An efficiency ratio was estimated as the percentage of recalls divided by the percentage of mammograms.
resultsThe study cohort included 2,674,051 screening mammograms in 925,777 women, with 235,569 recalls. The most important predictor of recall was time since prior mammogram, followed by age, history of false-positive recall, breast density, history of benign biopsy, and screening modality. Recall rates were very high for baseline mammograms (21.3/100; 95% confidence interval, 19.7-23.0) and high for women with ≥5 years since prior mammogram (15.1/100; 95% confidence interval, 14.3-16.1). The 9.2% of mammograms in subgroups with very high and high recall rates accounted for 19.2% of recalls, an efficiency ratio of 2.1 compared with a random approach. Adding women <50 years of age with dense breasts accounted for 20.3% of mammograms and 33.9% of recalls (efficiency ratio = 1.7). Results including facility-level characteristics were similar.
conclusionsPrioritizing women with baseline mammograms or ≥5 years since prior mammogram for immediate interpretation and possible diagnostic evaluation could considerably reduce the number of women needing to return for diagnostic imaging at another visit.
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.