ArticleCureus2024
Added Value of a Previous Exam Comparison in the Final Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI-RADS®) Assessment in Screening Mammography.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Performance and Geographic Variation in Mammography Services: A Nine-Year Audit from Southern Jordan.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Radiological Findings Post Autologous Fat Grafting and Breasts Procedures: Avoiding False Positive Results.ANZ journal of surgery · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to determine the impact of prior examination comparison in the final Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI-RADS®) assessment in screening mammography. We compared the incidence of BI-RADS® categories 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 before and after comparing to the previous exam, with a focus on category 0. We also compared the radiologists' final classification according to their clinical practice experience. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis is a prospective observational study conducted from August 2020 to February 2021. Two radiologists independently interpreted 3,896 consecutive mammograms. The final BI-RADS® category was given for the mammography blinded to the previous examinations and after comparing the previous examination. We also compared the radiologists' final classification according to their clinical practice experience.
resultsA total of 3,656 patients referred for breast mammography were evaluated, and 3,531 screening mammograms were included. The final BI-RADS® classification for mammograms blinded to previous examinations was as follows: 389 (11.02%), 3,017 (85.44%), 35 (0.99%), 87 (2.46%), and 3 (0.08%) for categories 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. After comparing the previous examinations, the results were as follows: 103 (2.92%), 3,311 (93.77%), 39 (1.10%), 75 (2.12%), and 3 (0.08%) for categories 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Reader 1 read 1,439 mammograms, while reader 2 read 2,093 mammograms. When comparing the final category of each reader independently, reader 1 classified the mammograms as 91 (7.10%), 1,181 (92.19%), two (0.16%), and seven (0.55%) for blinded mammograms and 0, 1,261 (98.44%), six (0.47%), and 14 (1.09%) for mammograms after prior examination comparison for categories 0, 1 and 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Reader 2 classified the mammograms as 194 (9.27%), 1,181 (87.52%), 27 (1.29%), and 40 (1.91%) for blinded mammograms and one (0.05%), 2,044 (97.71%), 26 (1.24%), and 21 (1.00%) for mammograms after previous exams comparison for categories 0, 1 and 2, 3, and 4, respectively.
conclusionComparing previous mammograms of participants in breast cancer screening programs may reduce the number of BI-RADS® category 0 final classifications by 73.8% and the number of positive findings in the final classification, especially for the less experienced readers.
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.