ArticleEuropean radiology2013
Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography.
Article in European radiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer detection: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2020Pooled it
- An Exploration of Discrepant Recalls Between AI and Human Readers of Malignant Lesions in Digital Mammography Screening.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Can we reduce the workload of mammographic screening by automatic identification of normal exams with artificial intelligence? A feasibility study.European radiology · 2019Article
- Stand-Alone Artificial Intelligence for Breast Cancer Detection in Mammography: Comparison With 101 Radiologists.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2019Article
- A new breast tomosynthesis imaging method: Continuous Sync-and-Shoot - technical feasibility and initial experience.Acta radiologica open · 2019Article
- Diagnostic Efficacy of Synthesized 2D Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Multi-ethnic Malaysian Population.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- New reconstruction algorithm for digital breast tomosynthesis: better image quality for humans and computers.Acta radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987) · 2018Article
- Diagnostic value of the stand-alone synthetic image in digital breast tomosynthesis examinations.European radiology · 2018Observational
- The role of digital breast tomosynthesis in the breast assessment clinic: a review.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2017Review
- Imaging features and conspicuity of invasive lobular carcinomas on digital breast tomosynthesis.The British journal of radiology · 2017Article
- Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: State of the Art.Radiology · 2015Article
- Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2015Review
- Article
- Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis.European radiology · 2014Article
- X-ray scatter correction in breast tomosynthesis with a precomputed scatter map library.Medical physics · 2014Article
- Computer-aided detection of clustered microcalcifications in multiscale bilateral filtering regularized reconstructed digital breast tomosynthesis volume.Medical physics · 2014Article
- Digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography and breast ultrasound: a multireader performance study.European radiology · 2013Article
- Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration.European radiology · 2013Article
- Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis.European radiology · 2013Article
- Epidemiology of Breast Cancer - Current Figures and Trends.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the performance of combined single-view mediolateral oblique (MLO) digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus single-view cranio-caudal (CC) mammography (MX) compared with that of standard two-view digital mammography.
methodsA multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) study was conducted, involving six breast radiologists. Two hundred fifty patients underwent bilateral MX and DBT imaging. MX and DBT images with the adjunct of the CC-MX view from 469 breasts were evaluated and rated independently by six readers. Differences in mean areas under the ROC curves (AUCs), mean sensitivity and mean specificity were analysed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) to assess clinical performance.
resultsThe combined technique was found to be non-inferior to standard two-view mammography (MX((CC+MLO))) in mean AUC (difference: +0.021;95 % LCL = -0.011), but was not statistically significant for superiority (P = 0.197). The combined technique had equivalent sensitivity to standard mammography (76.2 % vs. 72.8 %, P = 0.269) and equivalent specificity (84.9 % vs. 83.0 %, P = 0.130). Specificity for benign lesions was significantly higher with the combination of techniques versus mammography (45.6 % vs. 36.8 %, P = 0.002).
conclusionIn this enriched study population, the combination of single-view MLO tomosynthesis plus single-view CC mammography was non-inferior to that of standard two-view digital mammography in terms of ROC curve area, sensitivity and specificity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22976919What 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.