Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37795005›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of breast health2023

Evaluating Efficiency of Time Use and Operational Costs in a Breast Clinic Workflow: A Comparative Analysis Between Automated Breast Ultrasound and Handheld Ultrasound.

Nilgün Güldoğan, Sıla Ulus, Özge Kovan, Aslıgül Aksan, Kaya Tokmakçıoğlu, Hatice Camgöz Akdağ, Ebru Yılmaz, Ebru Banu Türk, Erkin Arıbal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of breast health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Emerging applications of artificial intelligence for obstetric ultrasound: A scoping review.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Nilgün GüldoğanClinic of Breast Health, Acıbadem Altunizade Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8322-8374
Sıla UlusClinic of Radiology, Acıbadem Ataşehir Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9313-3165
Özge KovanMedical Imaging Techniques Program, Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydinlar University Vocational School of Health Services, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1138-4102
Aslıgül AksanDepartment of Management Engineering, İstanbul Technical University Faculty of Management, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3846-0243
Kaya TokmakçıoğluDepartment of Management Engineering, İstanbul Technical University Faculty of Management, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5981-299X
Hatice Camgöz AkdağDepartment of Management Engineering, İstanbul Technical University Faculty of Management, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9818-6012
Ebru YılmazClinic of Breast Health, Acıbadem Altunizade Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8681-1565
Ebru Banu TürkClinic of Breast Health, Acıbadem Altunizade Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1219-0553
Erkin ArıbalClinic of Breast Health, Acıbadem Altunizade Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5525-8696

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate efficiency of time use for radiologists and operational costs of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) versus handheld breast ultrasound (HHUS). Materials and Methods: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board, and informed consent was waived. One hundred and fifty-three patients, aged 21-81 years, underwent both ABUS and HHUS. The time required for the ABUS scanning and radiologist interpretation and the combined scanning and interpretation time for HHUS were recorded for screening and diagnostic exams. One-Way ANOVA test was used to compare the methods, and Cohen Kappa statistics were used to achieve the agreement levels. Finally, the cost of the methods and return of interest were compared by completing a cost analysis. Results: The overall mean ± standard deviation examination time required for ABUS examination was 676.2±145.42 seconds while mean scan time performed by radiographers was 411.76±67.79 seconds, and the mean radiologist time was 234.01±81.88 seconds. The overall mean examination time required for HHUS was 452.52±171.26 seconds, and the mean scan time and radiologist time were 419.62±143.24 seconds. The reduced time translated into savings of 7.369 TL/month, and savings of 22% in operational costs was achieved with ABUS. Conclusion: The radiologist's time was reduced with ABUS in both screening and diagnostic scenarios. Although a second-look HHUS is required for diagnostic cases, ABUS still saves radiologists time by enabling a focused approach instead of a complete evaluation of both breasts. Thus, ABUS appears to save both medical staff time and operational costs.

Indexed as

Automated breast ultrasoundhandheld ultrasoundoperational costradiologisttime savings

Identifiers

PMID37795005
PMCPMC10546795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.