ArticleActa radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987)2024
Comparing the diagnostic accuracy, reading time, and inter-rater agreement of breast MRI abbreviated and full protocols: a multi-reader study.
Article in Acta radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987), 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarlier studies have shown that abbreviated protocol magnetic resonance imaging (AB-MRI) has similar diagnostic accuracy as the full protocol (Full MRI). PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy, reading time, and inter-rater agreement of AB-MRI to Full MRI among women without known increased familial risk of breast cancer or prior biopsy. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn total, 395 MRI examinations were included in this study. Three readers were blinded to all patient information. The AB-MRI and Full MRI were read separately and in a different random order for each of the readers. Scores 1-2 were considered test negative while scores 3-5 were test positive. A positive reference test was the diagnosis of malignancy; a negative reference test was the absence of a diagnosis of breast cancer within a two-year follow-up. We used a generalized estimating equations approach to compare sensitivity and specificity between the two protocols. We used
resultsMRI examinations of 395 women (median age=56 years) were evaluated. For AB-MRI and Full MRI, respectively, the sensitivity was 93.0% (95% CI=90.6-95.0) vs. 92.0% (95% CI=89.4-94.1), the specificity was 91.7% (95% CI=90.3-92.9) vs. 94.3% (95% CI=93.2-95.3), average reading time was 67 vs. 126 s, and the inter-rater agreement 0.79 vs. 0.83. The difference in sensitivity was not statistically significant (
conclusionAB-MRI has similar sensitivity, but somewhat lower specificity. The average reading time for the abbreviated protocol is lower, as is inter-rater agreement.
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.