Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39899373›Full record

ArticleJournal of breast imaging2025

Mammography Home Workstations and Remote Diagnostic Breast Imaging: Current Practice Patterns and Planned Future Directions.

Ria Dawar, Lars J Grimm, Emily B Sonnenblick, Brian N Dontchos, Kristen Coffey, Sally Goudreau, Beatriu Reig, Sarah A Jacobs, Zeeshan Shah, Lisa Mullen and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of breast imaging, 2025. 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

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

16 authors.

Ria DawarDepartment of Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Lars J GrimmDepartment of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3865-3352
Emily B SonnenblickDepartment of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Brian N DontchosDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2779-2218
Kristen CoffeyDepartment of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, NewYork-Presbyterian, New York, NY, USA.
Sally GoudreauDepartment of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8312-0494
Beatriu ReigDepartment of Radiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6577-8601
Sarah A JacobsAllina Health, New Ulm Medical Center, New Ulm, MN, USA.
Zeeshan ShahElite Breast Imaging/Radiology Partners, El Segundo, CA, USA.
Lisa MullenDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3191-2865
Vandana DialaniDepartment of Radiology, Beth Israel Lahey Health, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5728-8103
Reema DawarFu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
James SayreDepartment of Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Katerina DodelzonDepartment of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, NewYork-Presbyterian, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9138-4385
Jay R ParikhDivision of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Hannah S MilchDepartment of Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAssess current practices and plans regarding home workstations and remote diagnostic breast imaging in the United States.

methodsA 43-question survey relating to remote breast imaging was distributed to Society of Breast Imaging members from July 6, 2023, through August 2, 2023. A descriptive summary of responses was performed. Pearson's chi-squared test was used to compare demographic variables of respondents and questions of interest.

resultsIn total, 424 surveys were completed (response rate 13%, 424/3244). One-third of breast imaging radiologists (31%, 132/424) reported reading examinations from home or a personal remote site for a median of 25% of their clinical time. The most common types of examinations read from home were screening mammography (90%, 119/132), screening US (58%, 77/132), diagnostic mammography and MRI (both 53%, 70/132), and diagnostic US (49%, 65/132). Respondents from private practices were more likely than those from academic practices to read diagnostic imaging from home (67%, 35/52 vs 29%, 15/52; P <.001). Respondents practicing in the West were less likely to read breast imaging examinations from home compared with those in other geographic regions (18%, 12/67 vs 28%-43% for other regions; P = .023). No differences were found among respondents' overall use of home workstations based on age, gender, or having dependents. Most respondents (75%, 318/424) felt that remote breast reading would be a significant practice pattern in the future.

conclusionHome workstations for mammography and remote diagnostic breast imaging are a considerable U.S. practice pattern. Further research should explore radiologist preferences regarding remote breast imaging and its impact on clinical care and radiologist well-being.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMammographyPractice Patterns, Physicians'AdultAgedFemaleHumansMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Statesbreast radiologydiagnostic breast imaginghome workstationsremote work

Identifiers

PMID39899373
PMCPMC12086084

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.