Practitioner compression force variability in mammography: a preliminary study

Mercer, Claire; Hogg, Peter; Lawson, Richard; Diffey, Jennifer; Denton, Erika R. E.

doi:10.1259/bjr.20110596

Cited by 62 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Together with this, breast density was established by one reader for each image using the 4 point BI-RADS ® scale (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [13] ) -BI-RADS ® 1 <25% dense, BI-RADS ® 2: 25%-50% dense, BI-RADS ® 3: 51%-75% dense, and BI-RADS ® 4 >75% dense. This reader was an experienced breast practitioner who had good BI-RADS ® classification scoring agreement with 3 other experienced breast clinicians (Kappa 0.83, 0.92, 0.83) [9] .…”

Section: Client Samplementioning

confidence: 99%

“…These practitioners were the same as those used in a previous study [9] ; this permitted direct comparison of results between these two studies. The average number of mammograms performed per practitioner was 73 (range 10-146).…”

Section: Practitionersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within a previous study [9] these practitioners were placed into compression force groups because of their similar compression force means; this provided a way of classifying them. For the current study the same practitioner groupings / classifications were applied -the practitioners had similar compression force means as the previous study [9] (rank sum correlation coefficient = 0.9).…”

Section: Compression Force Valuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous research [9] has established that practitioners vary in the amount of compression force they apply to breast tissue during mammography. This finding was independent of specific client characteristics (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Practitioner compression force variation in mammography: A 6-year study

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Client Samplementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Practitionersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Compression Force Valuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Practitioner compression force variation in mammography: A 6-year study

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Recently pilot work in one mammography screening centre 6 identified a surprising variability in the amount of compression force applied for similar breast types, with practitioners aligned with consistently low, intermediate or high compression force categories. An extension of this study 7 assessed compression values over three consecutive analogue screening mammography invitations (500 clients).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compression force behaviours: An exploration of the beliefs and values influencing the application of breast compression during screening mammography

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction and backgroundBreast compression force during screening mammography requires a degree of practitioner knowledge and expertise to achieve optimum image quality and reduce the mean glandular radiation dose.1, 2 Whilst it is recognised that the application of compression force is an Whilst quantitative approaches give valuable data, a humanistic, qualitative, perspective is also required in order to fully understand this phenomenon in depth and to provide a unique insight in to the factors influencing how compression force is applied.Using a phenomenological approach this study investigated the experiences of, and the influences on the behaviour of, practitioners applying compression force in mammography. By exploring the individual and collective beliefs and values that influence compression force practice this paper seeks to identify 'how' and 'why' practitioners practice as they do. MethodologyQualitative research is an overall term for a group of approaches that is concerned with the investigation of experiences and behaviour, and the meanings and interpretations that people attach to these 12 . It is therefore an exploration of the natural setting; in this case the breast screening units in this study. An ethnographic approach of observing practice was initially considered but this was rejected as being too intrusive for the clients and potentially a contentious ethical issue. It was however recognised that by seeking the practitioners own

show abstract

Self-compression Technique vs Standard Compression in Mammography

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Many women dread undergoing mammography, and some may not attend or reattend breast cancer screening because of the discomfort or pain induced by breast compression. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the noninferiority of the self-compression mammography technique for reducing breast thickness compared with standard compression. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This prospective, parallel-group, noninferiority randomized clinical trial was conducted from May 7, 2013, to October 26, 2015, at 6 cancer care centers in France. Participants were women aged 50 to 75 years, without a history of recent breast surgical procedure or treatment, and who could perform self-compression. Analyses were performed on intention-to-treat basis from January 27, 2017, to March 30, 2018. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized 1:1 to the self-compression group or the standard compression group. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary end point was breast thickness expressed as the mean of 4 views: right and left craniocaudal and right and left mediolateral oblique. The predefined noninferiority margin was a difference of 3 mm, with a 1-sided 95% CI. Secondary end points included compression force, image quality, requirement for additional views, pain, and patient satisfaction and radiographer assessment questionnaires. RESULTS Among the 549 women randomized, 548 (97.3%) completed the trial. Of these, 275 (48.8%) (mean [SD] age, 61.35 [6.34] years) were randomized to the self-compression arm and 273 (48.5%) (mean [SD] age, 60.84 [6.41] years) to the standard compression arm. The difference in the mean thickness between the 2 arms was lower than the noninferiority margin, with an upper 1-sided 95% CI less than 3 mm (-0.17; 95% CI,−ϱ to 1.89 mm; P < .05). Compression force was higher in the self-compression group compared with the standard compression arm for the 4 mammographic views. Pain was statistically significantly lower in the self-compression group (n = 274) compared with the standard compression group (n = 269) (median [interquartile range (IQR)] score, 2 [1-5] vs 3 [1-5]; P = .009). No difference was reported in the image quality scores of the 2 groups or in the number of additional views performed (median [IQR] extra views, 2 [2-2] vs 2 [2-3] extra views; P = .64), whatever the indication, including insufficient image quality (29 [16.8%] vs 27 [15.0%] insufficient quality views; P = .65). No adverse effects or pain were reported by the participants after the self-compression mammography. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Self-compression does not appear to be inferior to standard compression mammography in achieving minimal breast thickness without increasing pain or compromising image quality; this technique may be an effective option for women who want to be involved in their breast examination. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02866591

show abstract

Practitioner compression force variability in mammography: a preliminary study

Cited by 62 publications

References 12 publications

Practitioner compression force variation in mammography: A 6-year study

Practitioner compression force variation in mammography: A 6-year study

Compression force behaviours: An exploration of the beliefs and values influencing the application of breast compression during screening mammography

Self-compression Technique vs Standard Compression in Mammography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About