Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37481690›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2023

A survey by the European Society of Breast Imaging on radiologists' preferences regarding quality assurance measures of image interpretation in screening and diagnostic mammography.

Eleni Michalopoulou, Paola Clauser, Fiona J Gilbert, Ruud M Pijnappel, Ritse M Mann, Pascal A T Baltzer, Yan Chen, Eva Maria Fallenberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European 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. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Eleni Michalopoulou *University of Nottingham, School of Medicine, Clinical Sciences Building, City Hospital Campus, Hucknall Road, NG5 1PB, Nottingham, UK. Eleni.Michalopoulou@nottingham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3552-7908
Paola Clauser *Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Allgemeines Krankenhaus, Medical University of Vienna, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Fiona J Gilbert *Department of Radiology, Clinical School, Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Ruud M Pijnappel *University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584, Utrecht, CX, The Netherlands.
Ritse M Mann *Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Centre, 6525, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Pascal A T Baltzer *Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Allgemeines Krankenhaus, Medical University of Vienna, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Yan Chen *University of Nottingham, School of Medicine, Clinical Sciences Building, City Hospital Campus, Hucknall Road, NG5 1PB, Nottingham, UK.
Eva Maria Fallenberg *Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, School of Medicine & Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, München, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesQuality assurance (QA) of image interpretation plays a key role in screening and diagnostic mammography, maintaining minimum standards and supporting continuous improvement in interpreting images. However, the QA structure across Europe shows considerable variation. The European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) conducted a survey among the members to collect information on radiologists' preferences regarding QA measures in mammography. MATERIALS AND

methodsAn anonymous online survey consisting of 25 questions was distributed to all EUSOBI members and national breast radiology bodies in Europe. The questions were designed to collect demographic characteristics, information on responders' mammography workload and data about QA measures currently used in their country. Data was analysed using descriptive statistical analysis, the χ

resultsIn total, 251 breast radiologists from 34 countries completed the survey. Most respondents were providing both screening and symptomatic services (137/251, 54.6%), working in an academic hospital (85/251, 33.9%) and reading 1000-4999 cases per year (109/251, 43.4%). More than half of them (133/251, 53%) had established QA measures in their workplace. Although less than one-third (71/251, 28.3%) had to participate in regular performance testing, the vast majority (190/251, 75.7%) agreed that a mandatory test would be helpful to improve their skills.

conclusionQA measures were in place for more than half of the respondents working in screening and diagnostic mammography to evaluate their breast imaging performance. Although there were substantial differences between countries, the importance of having QA in the workplace and implemented was widely acknowledged by radiologists. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Although several quality assurance (QA) measures of image interpretation are recommended by European bodies or national organisations, the QA in mammography is quite heterogenous between countries and reporting settings, and not always actively implemented across Europe. KEY POINTS: The first survey that presents radiologists' preferences regarding QA measures of image interpretation in mammography. Quality assurance measures in the workplace are better-established for breast screening compared to diagnostic mammography. Radiologists consider that performance tests would help to improve their mammography interpretation skills.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsRadiologistsBreastEuropeFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningSurveys and QuestionnairesMammographyRadiologistsSurvey and questionnairesWorkloadWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID37481690
PMCPMC10598074

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.