Reference	Study Type	Patients/Events	Study Objective(Purpose of Study)	Study Results	Study Quality

1. Niell BL, Jochelson MS, Amir T, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria R Female Breast Cancer Screening: 2023 Update. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 21(6S):S126-S143, 2024 Jun.J. Am. Coll. Radiol.. 21(6S):S126-S143, 2024 Jun.	Review/Other-Dx	N/A	Evidence-based guidelines to assist referring physicians and other providers in making the most appropriate imaging or treatment decision for female breast cancer screening.	No results stated in abstract.	4
2. Brown A, Lourenco AP, Niell BL, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Transgender Breast Cancer Screening. J Am Coll Radiol 2021;18:S502-S15.	Review/Other-Dx	N/A	Evidence-based guidelines to assist referring physicians and other providers in making the most appropriate imaging or treatment decision for transgender breast cancer screening.	No results stated in abstract.	4
3. Middleton MS.. MR evaluation of breast implants. [Review]. Radiol Clin North Am. 52(3):591-608, 2014 May.	Review/Other-Dx	N/A	To describe the rationale and indications for breast implant-related magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, alone or in combination with breast cancer-related MR imaging.	No results stated in abstract.	4
No of Rows: 3

Study Quality Category	Study Quality Definition	Criteria for Diagnostic Studies	Criteria for Therapeutic Studies
Category 1	The study is well-designed and accounts for common biases.	The source has all 8 diagnostic study quality elements present.	The source has 5 or 6 therapeutic study quality elements
Category 2	The study is moderately well-designed and accounts for most common biases.	The source has 6 or 7 diagnostic study quality elements	The source has 3 or 4 therapeutic study quality elements
Category 3	There are important study design limitations.	The source has 3, 4, or 5 diagnostic study quality elements	The source has 1 or 2 therapeutic study quality elements
Category 4	The study is not useful as primary evidence. The article may not be a clinical study or the study design is invalid, or conclusions are based on expert consensus. For example: The study does not meet the criteria for or is not a hypothesis-based clinical study (e.g., a book chapter or case report or case series description); The study may synthesize and draw conclusions about several studies such as a literature review article or book chapter but is not primary evidence; The study is an expert opinion or consensus document.	The source has 0, 1, or 2 diagnostic study quality elements present.	The source has zero (0) therapeutic study quality elements.
Meta-analysis	Good quality – the study design, methods, analysis, and results are valid and the conclusion is supported. Inadequate quality – the study design, analysis, and results lack the methodological rigor to be considered a good meta-analysis study.	n/a	n/a