| Title |
Breast cancer mammographic diagnosis performance in a public health institution: a retrospective cohort study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Insights into Imaging, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13244-017-0573-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Juliana M.R.B. Mello, Fernando P. Bittelbrunn, Marcio A. B. C. Rockenbach, Guilherme G. May, Leonardo M. Vedolin, Marilia S. Kruger, Matheus D. Soldatelli, Guilherme Zwetsch, Gabriel T. F. de Miranda, Saone I. P. Teixeira, Bruna S. Arruda |
| Abstract |
To evaluate the quality assurance of mammography results at a reference institution for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer in southern Brazil, based on the BIRADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) 5th edition recommendations for auditing purposes. Retrospective cohort and cross-sectional study with 4502 patients (9668 mammographies)) who underwent at least one or both breast mammographies throughout 2013 at a regional public hospital, linked to a federal public university. The results were followed until 31 December 2014, including true positives (TPs), true negatives (TNs), false positives (FPs), false negatives (FNs), positive predictive values (PPVs), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity and specificity, with a confidence interval of 95%. The study showed high quality assurance, particularly regarding sensitivity (90.22%) and specificity (92.31%). The overall positive predictive value (PPV) was 65.35%, and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 98.32%. The abnormal interpretation rate (recall rate) was 12.26%. The results are appropriate when compared to the values proposed by the BIRADS 5th edition. Additionally, the study provided self-reflection considering our radiological practice, which is essential for improvements and collaboration regarding breast cancer detection. It may stimulate better radiological practice performance and continuing education, despite possible infrastructure and facility limitations. • Accurate quality performance rates are possible despite financial and governmental limitations. • Low-income institutions should develop standardised teamwork to improve radiological practice. • Regular mammography audits may help to increase the quality of public health systems. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 10 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 15% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 11% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 12 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 December 2017.
All research outputs
#15,907,830
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#678
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,865
of 326,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#13
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,620 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.