ArticleDeutsches Arzteblatt international2008
Imaging studies for the early detection of breast cancer.
Article in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Novel Nomogram Based on Imaging Biomarkers of Shear Wave Elastography, Angio Planewave Ultrasensitive Imaging, and Conventional Ultrasound for Preoperative Prediction of Malignancy in Patients with Breast Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Combined Use of Shear Wave Elastography, Microvascular Doppler Ultrasound Technique, and BI-RADS for the Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Breast Masses.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Article
- Mammography Screening - as of 2013.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2013Article
- [Limits of mammography screening: current controversies and perspectives].Der Radiologe · 2013Article
- Errors and mistakes in breast ultrasound diagnostics.Journal of ultrasonography · 2012Review
- Harmonic Motion Imaging (HMI) for Tumor Imaging and Treatment Monitoring.Current medical imaging reviews · 2012Article
- Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: new genes, new treatments, new concepts.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2011Review
- Our readers' voice. Letters to the editor are an important component of the discussion of scientific articles, in Deutsches Arzteblatt as in other journals. our correspondence pages reflect a diversity of opinion thanks to the love of debate among our readers--and thanks to a few rules.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2009Article
- Correspondence (letter to the editor): Bonn study was interpreted incorrectly.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2009Article
- Correspondence (letter to the editor): imaging is not sufficient.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2009Article
- Correspondence (letter to the editor): MRI not considered.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2009Article
- Advantages and Disadvantages of Mammography Screening.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe effectiveness of mammographic screening has been proven at evidence level 1A. Mammography offers the best ratio of benefits to side effects of any screening method tested to date. In this literature review, we ask whether early detection might be improved still further by combining mammography with other imaging modalities.
methodsThe authors performed a selective literature search for combined key words in the Medline and Cochrane Library databases from 1/2000 to 11/2007, screened all titles, and evaluated the full text of all original articles. We selected articles for further analysis according to systematic criteria (minimum numbers, avoidance of overlap) and also considered published guidelines.
resultsNo screening studies of comparable size to those for mammography are available for ultrasound or MRI. Smaller studies have indicated that the use of these two modalities might lead to the detection of additional cancers in selected subgroups. For mass screening an increase in the detection rate of 10% to 15% might become possible. This increase would probably be associated with a tripling of the breast biopsy rate, compared to mammography alone. The number of indeterminate cases in which short-term follow-up (i.e., at 6 months) would be recommended would increase roughly tenfold with MRI, and to an unknown extent with ultrasound. The related quality-assurance issues remain to be addressed. DISCUSSION: Randomized controlled studies are needed for a realistic assessment of the achievable benefits and unavoidable side effects of combined screening. For women whose risk of breast cancer is not elevated, mammography remains the standard screening method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.