Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39545978›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology2025

Misdiagnosis in breast imaging: a statement paper from European Society Breast Imaging (EUSOBI)-Part 1: The role of common errors in radiology in missed breast cancer and implications of misdiagnosis.

Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara, Fleur Kilburn-Toppin, Alexandra Athanasiou, Gabor Forrai, Miruna Ispas, Mihai Lesaru, Elisabetta Giannotti, Katja Pinker-Domenig, Chantal Van Ongeval, Fiona Gilbert and 3 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

13 authors.

Isabelle Thomassin-NaggaraSorbonne Université, Paris, France. isabelle.thomassin@aphp.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0919-0133
Fleur Kilburn-ToppinRadiology Department, University of Cambridge, Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Alexandra AthanasiouBreast Imaging Department, MITERA Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Gabor ForraiDuna Medical Center, GE-RAD Kft, Budapest, Hungary.
Miruna IspasDepartment of Radiology, Imaging and Interventional Radiology Fundeni Clinical Institute, Bucharest, Romania.
Mihai LesaruDepartment of Radiology, Imaging and Interventional Radiology Fundeni Clinical Institute, Bucharest, Romania.
Elisabetta GiannottiRadiology Department, University of Cambridge, Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Katja Pinker-DomenigDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna/Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria.
Chantal Van OngevalDepartment of Radiology, Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Fiona GilbertRadiology Department, University of Cambridge, Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
Ritse M MannDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Federica PediconiDepartment of Radiological, Pathological and Oncological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
EUSOBI Board

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceMisdiagnosis in breast imaging can have significant implications for patients, healthcare providers, and the healthcare system as a whole. OBSERVATIONS: Some of the potential implications of misdiagnosis in breast imaging include delayed diagnosis or false reassurance, which can result in a delay in treatment and potentially a worse prognosis. Misdiagnosis can also lead to unnecessary procedures, which can cause physical discomfort, anxiety, and emotional distress for patients, as well as increased healthcare costs. All these events can erode patient trust in the healthcare system and in individual healthcare providers. This can have negative implications for patient compliance with screening and treatment recommendations, as well as overall health outcomes. Moreover, misdiagnosis can also result in legal consequences for healthcare providers, including medical malpractice lawsuits and disciplinary action by licensing boards. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: To minimize the risk of misdiagnosis in breast imaging, it is important for healthcare providers to use appropriate imaging techniques and interpret images accurately and consistently. This requires ongoing training and education for radiologists and other healthcare providers, as well as collaboration and communication among healthcare providers to ensure that patients receive appropriate and timely care. If a misdiagnosis does occur, it is important for healthcare providers to communicate with patients and provide appropriate follow-up care to minimize the potential implications of the misdiagnosis. This may include repeat imaging, additional biopsies or other procedures, and referral to specialists for further evaluation and management. KEY POINTS: Question What factors most contribute to and what implications stem from misdiagnosis in breast imaging? Findings Ongoing training and education for radiologists and other healthcare providers, as well as interdisciplinary collaboration and communication, is paramount. Clinical relevance Misdiagnosis in breast imaging can have significant implications for patients, healthcare providers, and the entire healthcare system.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsDiagnostic ErrorsMammographyEuropeFemaleHumansArtificial intelligenceMammographyMisdiagnosisMRIUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID39545978

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.