ReviewThe British journal of radiology2012
Breast screening review--a radiologist's perspective.
Review in The British journal of radiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Detection and diagnosis of automated breast ultrasound in patients with BI-RADS category 4 microcalcifications: a retrospective study.BMC medical imaging · 2024Article
- Predicting Ki-67 expression levels in breast cancer using radiomics-based approaches on digital breast tomosynthesis and ultrasound.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Exploiting Patch Sizes and Resolutions for Multi-Scale Deep Learning in Mammogram Image Classification.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Digital breast tomosynthesis-based peritumoral radiomics approaches in the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2022Article
- Intra- and peri-tumoral radiomics for predicting the sentinel lymph node metastasis in breast cancer based on preoperative mammography and MRI.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Radiomic Evaluations of the Diagnostic Performance of DM, DBT, DCE MRI, DWI, and Their Combination for the Diagnosisof Breast Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Can the synthetic C view images be used in isolation for diagnosing breast malignancy without reviewing the entire digital breast tomosynthesis data set?Irish journal of medical science · 2018Article
- Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?The British journal of radiology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently published articles in the lay press and scientific journals have questioned the value of breast screening, and have raised concerns about both possible harmful effects and the information provided for females when they receive their screening invitation. A review of data from screening trials and the process for providing information for the public on screening has been announced by Professor Sir Mike Richards, National Clinical Director for Cancer. What are the major issues involved and what expectations should radiologists and other members of the screening team have of the review?
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.