Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18335192›Full record

ReviewDer Radiologe2008

[Current situation and future perspectives of digital mammography].

R Schulz-Wendtland, K-P Hermann, T Wacker, W Bautz

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Radiologe, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Histopathological image analysis: a review.IEEE reviews in biomedical engineering · 2009
    Review
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

4 authors.

R Schulz-WendtlandRadiologisches Institut, Gynäkologische Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen. Ruediger.Schulz-Wendtland@uk-erlangen.de
K-P Hermann
T Wacker
W Bautz

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital mammography has extensively replaced conventional film screen mammography and is now the standard in combination with soft copy reading in clinical as well as screening mammography. Large international multicenter studies demonstrate an equivalent or superior detection rate of breast cancers by digital in comparison to conventional mammography especially in dense breasts, premenopausal and perimenopausal women and women less than 50 years old. Computer-aided detection (CAD) is important for the experienced investigator (increased specificity). Digital mammography also offers further options, such as tomosynthesis, digital contrast-enhanced mammography and the combination of digital mammography and ultrasound. The future in breast diagnosis will be the fusion of images from different digital systems.

Indexed as

ForecastingBreast NeoplasmsHumansMammographyMass ScreeningRadiographic Image Enhancement

Identifiers

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.