Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20945146›Full record

ReviewDer Radiologe2010

[Physical aspects of different tomosynthesis systems].

F Semturs, E Sturm, R Gruber, T H Helbich

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Radiologe, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. [Digital breast tomosynthesis].Der Radiologe · 2015
    Article
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.

F SemtursZentrum für Medizinische Physik und Biomedizinische Technik, Medizinische Universität Wien, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, A-1090 Wien, Österreich. friedrich.semturs@meduniwien.ac.at
E Sturm
R Gruber
T H Helbich

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a new image processing technique based on digital mammography technology. Image slices of the stationary compressed breast are reconstructed from multiple images taken at different angles of the X-ray tube at the same time. The main goal is to achieve a similar radiation dose exposure as common encountered in traditional digital mammography. One of the key advantages of DBT is that lesions are less likely to be hidden amongst normal tissues as they are in traditional digital mammography. This way the quality of diagnosis can be improved, especially for dense breasts. Current DBT implementations from several manufacturers differ in certain features such as scanning angle, number of projections, scanning time, pixel size, reconstruction methods and type of tube movement. A comparison and description of these different characteristics as well as a discussion on the proposed number of imaging planes and related radiation dose requirements are given.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEquipment DesignFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedImaging, Three-DimensionalMammographyRadiation DosageRadiographic Image EnhancementSensitivity and SpecificityTomography, X-Ray Computed

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.