Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39530892›Full record

Observational studyRadiology2024

Changes in Reader Performance During Sequential Reading of Breast Cancer Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Examinations.

Craig K Abbey, Andriy I Bandos, Mohana K Parthasarathy, Michael A Webster, Margarita L Zuley

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Craig K AbbeyFrom the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California-Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, Calif (C.K.A.); Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa (A.I.B.); Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Magee-Womens Hospital, 300 Halket St, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (A.I.B., M.L.Z.); and Department of Psychology, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, Nev (M.K.P., M.A.W.).ORCID 0000-0003-4608-9402
Andriy I BandosFrom the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California-Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, Calif (C.K.A.); Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa (A.I.B.); Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Magee-Womens Hospital, 300 Halket St, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (A.I.B., M.L.Z.); and Department of Psychology, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, Nev (M.K.P., M.A.W.).ORCID 0000-0001-5629-1415
Mohana K ParthasarathyFrom the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California-Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, Calif (C.K.A.); Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa (A.I.B.); Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Magee-Womens Hospital, 300 Halket St, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (A.I.B., M.L.Z.); and Department of Psychology, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, Nev (M.K.P., M.A.W.).
Michael A WebsterFrom the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California-Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, Calif (C.K.A.); Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa (A.I.B.); Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Magee-Womens Hospital, 300 Halket St, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (A.I.B., M.L.Z.); and Department of Psychology, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, Nev (M.K.P., M.A.W.).ORCID 0000-0001-8262-7525
Margarita L ZuleyFrom the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California-Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, Calif (C.K.A.); Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa (A.I.B.); Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Magee-Womens Hospital, 300 Halket St, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (A.I.B., M.L.Z.); and Department of Psychology, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, Nev (M.K.P., M.A.W.).ORCID 0000-0003-2127-8346

Funding

Sequential Reading Effects in Digital Breast TomosynthesisR01CA237827 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI ABBEY, CRAIG KENDALL, BANDOS, ANDRIY · 2020 to 2023
$1.6M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA237827
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Studies suggest that readers experience perceptual adaptation when interpreting batched screening mammograms, which may serve as a mechanism for improved performance. Purpose To analyze clinical digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening data to evaluate changes in reader performance during sequential batch reading. Materials and Methods This observational retrospective study used data from the radiology information system collected for screening DBT examinations performed from January 2018 to December 2019. The reference standard was established based on pathology results, if applicable, or imaging findings at 1-year follow-up. Examinations were aggregated into batches, defined as a sequence of cases for a given reader with differences in interexamination time of 10 minutes or less. Mixed-effect models were used to evaluate performance and timing across batch positions. Statistical adjustments accounted for potential confounders, including patient characteristics (age, breast density), reading factors (day of week, time of day), and between-reader heterogeneity. Results The dataset included 121 652 examinations (median patient age, 61 years [IQR, 53-69 years]), including 1081 cancers interpreted by 15 radiologists. Unadjusted false-positive rates decreased from an averaged 15.5% at the first within-batch examination to 10.5% after three sequentially read examinations (

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMammographyAgedBreastClinical CompetenceFemaleHumansMiddle AgedObserver VariationRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID39530892
PMCPMC11605108

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.