ArticleDer Pathologe2008
[Mammography screening. Concept, quality assurance and interdisciplinary cooperation].
Article in Der Pathologe, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2005/2006 the German National Mammography Screening Program was initiated and has now become established. The objective is to reduce breast cancer mortality and the early diagnosis and therapy of small cancers. The program follows the European guidelines and is controlled by over 30 parameters of quality. All trained members of the team document each step of the screening chain electronically. Histological assessment (HA) is recommended in up to 2% of examinations, 90% of HAs are performed by core needle biopsy (CNB) or by stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy (VABB). Open diagnostic biopsies are performed in <10% of all HAs and therapy is successful in some of the B3 lesions. Mammograms are interpreted by two independent readers. Recommendations of the regular interdisciplinary conferences, preoperative and postoperative, follow the European guidelines. About 45% of all breast cancers detected by screening are in-situ or less than 10 mm in size. The 17% alterations diagnosed by needle biopsy are B3 or B4 lesions and impose high demands on the pathologists and the interdisciplinary team. Due to the many early and discrete lesions counterchecking of representative biopsies is crucial. Problems may be caused by sampling error or partial volume effects. Interdisciplinary conferences and knowledge of the limitations of each discipline and method are needed to optimize diagnostic and therapeutic decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18807041What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.