ArticleJournal of breast imaging
Analysis of Technical Repeat Studies in Screening Mammography.
Article in Journal of breast imaging. 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.
- From Standard Establishment to Precision Intelligence: Research Progress in Quality Control of Mammography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To identify causes of technical repeats, determine whether differences exist between mobile and fixed mammography units, and evaluate the rate of improvement on repeat imaging. Methods: IRB approval was obtained for retrospective review of Enhancing Quality Using the Inspection Program (EQUIP) logs of screening mammography technical repeats performed from March 2017 to December 2018 at a hospital breast imaging center and from April 2017 to December 2018 on mobile mammography units. Frequency tables and Fisher's exact tests were used for statistical analysis. Results: Technical deficiencies were reported in 483 cases and reviewed by two or three auditors. Auditors identified no technical deficiencies in 31 cases, which were excluded. The remaining 452 cases were assigned a technical recall category: motion, positioning/excluded tissue, skin folds, artifacts, undercompression, or contrast (under/overexposure). Motion was the most common technical recall category (253/452, 56.0%). Positioning/excluded tissue was the second most common reason (150/452, 33.2%). Statistically significant differences in technical deficiencies were identified between mammograms performed on mobile versus fixed mammography units for motion (94/143, 65.7% vs 159/309, 51.5%, respectively, Conclusion: Motion and positioning/excluded tissue are the most common reasons for screening mammography technical recalls. The reasons for technical recall differ between patients imaged on mobile and fixed mammography units, likely because of differences in each location's patient population.
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.