Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37354771›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of radiology2023

Quality assurance in Mammography: An overview.

Kimberly Feigin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

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

1 author.

Kimberly FeiginMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, MSK Evelyn H. Lauder Breast and Imaging Center, 300 East 66(th) Street, New York, NY 10065, United States. Electronic address: feigink@mskcc.org.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since 1989, hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved worldwide by the widespread use of screening mammography alongside new developments in breast cancer treatment [1]. The ability of screening mammography to detect cancer early, when treatment is most effective, is optimized when it is performed in the highest quality manner and accessed by all eligible candidates. Currently, worldwide, there are over 14 guidance documents for mammographic quality [2]. Some countries, such as the United Kingdom (UK), monitor quality through a national screening program. In the United States (US), where 39 million mammograms are performed annually [3], there is not a national screening program, but the federal government mandates minimum quality standards for the performance of mammography. Among a consortium of European countries, the European Reference Organisation for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services (EUREF) promotes voluntary adherence to European mammography quality standards. Setting quality standards at national or international levels ensures the uniformity of practice and identifies substandard practices in need of improvement, ultimately maximizing the benefit of screening mammography.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMammographyEarly Detection of CancerEuropeFemaleHumansMass ScreeningQuality Assurance, Health CareUnited StatesBreast imagingMammographyQuality assuranceScreening

Identifiers

PMID37354771
PMCPMC10528604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.