Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18807041›Full record

ArticleDer Pathologe2008

[Mammography screening. Concept, quality assurance and interdisciplinary cooperation].

S H Heywang-Köbrunner, J Nährig, A Hacker

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

S H Heywang-KöbrunnerReferenzzentrum Mammographie München, Einsteinstr. 3, 81675 München. heywangkoe@referenzzentrum-muenchen.de
J Nährig
A Hacker

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cooperative BehaviorInterdisciplinary CommunicationAgedBiopsy, NeedleBreastBreast NeoplasmsCalcinosisEarly DiagnosisFemaleGermanyHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMammographyMiddle AgedNeoplasm Staging

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.