SynthesisAcademic radiology2009
Evaluating the correlation between film mammography and MRI for screening women with increased breast cancer risk.
Synthesis in Academic radiology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness of Children's Oncology Group Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines for Chest-Irradiated Hodgkin Lymphoma Survivors.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023Article
- Acid specific dark quencher QC1 pHLIP for multi-spectral optoacoustic diagnoses of breast cancer.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Adaptable near-infrared spectroscopy fiber array for improved coupling to different breast sizes during clinical MRI.Academic radiology · 2014Article
- Multimodality GPU-based computer-assisted diagnosis of breast cancer using ultrasound and digital mammography images.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2013Article
- Breast imaging: A survey.World journal of clinical oncology · 2011Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectivesBreast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly being added to mammography for screening asymptomatic women at increased risk of breast cancer. Because the direction and extent of correlation between mammography and MRI could potentially result in over- or underestimation of the diagnostic gain related to using MRI as an adjunct to mammographic screening, we performed an analysis to evaluate the extent of correlation between mammography and MRI. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe reviewed the published literature to identify multimodality breast cancer screening studies reporting the sensitivity of mammography and MRI, alone and in combination, for breast cancer diagnosis. After calculating the expected sensitivity of combined mammography and MRI under conditions of test independence (no correlation), we compared the calculated and observed sensitivities for combined mammography and MRI. We then calculated correlation coefficients for mammography and MRI.
resultsSeven studies of multimodality screening in women at increased risk of developing breast cancer were included for analysis. Of these studies, the correlation between film mammography and MRI was positive in three studies, negative in two studies, and not identified in two studies. The calculated correlation coefficients ranged from -0.38 to 0.18. In six of seven studies, the 95% confidence interval for the correlation coefficient included 0.0, indicating no significant correlation.
conclusionsEvidence from published trials of multimodality breast cancer screening identified no statistically significant correlation between film mammography and MRI. Using both tests for breast cancer screening is likely to improve the early detection of breast cancer in women at increased risk.
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.