Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40906184›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2026

Applying the "positive predictive value-recall diagram" to monitor performance and provide recommendations for screening radiologists.

Tanya D Geertse, Eric Tetteroo, Maartje J A Smid-Geirnaerdt, Lucien E M Duijm, Ruud M Pijnappel, Daniëlle van der Waal, Mireille J M Broeders

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Tanya D GeertseDutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Nijmegen, The Netherlands. tanya.geertse@radboudumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8603-488X
Eric TetterooDutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Maartje J A Smid-GeirnaerdtDutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Lucien E M DuijmDutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Ruud M PijnappelDutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Daniëlle van der WaalDutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Mireille J M BroedersDutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the suitability of "positive predictive value-recall" (PPV-recall) diagrams for monitoring performance and providing recommendations for groups of radiologists (RUs or reading units) in breast cancer screening. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis retrospective study used datasets from triennial quality assurance audits within the Dutch screening programme. The recall rate (RR), cancer detection rate (CDR), and PPV between 2010 and 2019 were plotted in PPV-recall diagrams separately for initial and subsequent screening. Using PPV-recall diagrams per year we compared variations in performance of the RUs within the screening programme. Each group's screening behaviour characteristics were evaluated over time with RU-specific PPV-recall diagrams and related audit recommendations.

resultsThe dataset comprised the aggregated results of 779,887 initial and 6,021,598 subsequent screenings read by 12 RUs between 2010 and 2019. The PPV-recall diagrams showed substantial variations in the individual RU performance over time, with PPVs ranging between 4.9 and 23.7% for initial and 21.2-54.3% for subsequent screening. Target values were less often met for initial (2010: 0 RUs; 2019: 5 RUs) than for subsequent screening (2010: 8 RUs; 2019: 10 RUs), resulting in more recommendations regarding initial screening (24 versus 13). All recommendations focused on adjusting RR, which often (17 out of 24) changed in the recommended direction, though not always sufficient to meet target values.

conclusionPPV-recall diagrams offer valuable insights into variations and interrelationships between screening outcomes, helping the audit team in providing recommendations for improvement. However, feedback based on these diagrams alone may not always be sufficient for individual radiologists to achieve these improvements. KEY POINTS: Question Can positive predictive value (PPV)-recall diagrams help audit teams provide recommendations to radiologists to enhance their reading performance in a breast cancer screening programme? Findings PPV-recall diagrams help audit teams identify screening outcome variation. Recall rates often changed in the desired direction after recommendations, but did not always meet targets. Clinical relevance Incorporating PPV-recall diagrams into quality assurance audits in breast cancer screening can support audit teams to provide recommendations to radiologists to maximise cancer detection and minimise false positives. Radiologists may need additional individual feedback to optimally achieve these improvements.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMammographyRadiologistsFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNetherlandsPredictive Value of TestsQuality Assurance, Health CareRetrospective StudiesBreast neoplasmsEarly detection of cancerMedical auditQuality assurance

Identifiers

PMID40906184
PMCPMC12963250

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.