ArticleEuropean radiology2013
Technical and clinical breast cancer screening performance indicators for computed radiography versus direct digital radiography.
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Successes and challenges in extracting information from DICOM image databases for audit and research.The British journal of radiology · 2023Review
- Development of Adaptive Point-Spread Function Estimation Method in Various Scintillation Detector Thickness for X-ray Imaging.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Characterization of Flexible Amorphous Silicon Thin-Film Transistor-Based Detectors with Positive-Intrinsic-Negative Diode in Radiography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Characterization of radiographers' mammography practice in five European countries: a pilot study.Insights into imaging · 2019Article
- Mammographic density assessed on paired raw and processed digital images and on paired screen-film and digital images across three mammography systems.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2016Article
- Effect of display type and room illuminance in chest radiographs.European radiology · 2016Article
- The relationship between cancer detection in mammography and image quality measurements.Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics (AIFB) · 2016Article
- Breast cancer detection rates using four different types of mammography detectors.European radiology · 2016Article
- Impact of the digitalisation of mammography on performance parameters and breast dose in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme.European radiology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare technical and clinical screening performance parameters between computed radiography (CR) and direct digital radiography (DR) systems.
methodsThe number of women screened with CR was 73,008 and with DR 116,945. Technical and patient dose survey data of 25 CR and 37 DR systems were available. Technical performance was expressed by threshold thickness values at the mean glandular dose (MGD) level of routine practice. Clinical indicators included recall rate (RR), cancer detection rate (CDR), percentage of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), percentage of cancers with T-scores smaller than 1 cm and positive predictive value (PPV).
resultsContrast threshold values for the 0.1-mm gold disk were 1.44 μm (SD 0.13 μm) for CR and 1.20 μm (SD 0.13 μm for DR). MGD was 2.16 mGy (SD 0.36 mGy) and 1.35 mGy (SD 0.32 mGy) for CR and DR respectively. We obtained for CR, respectively DR, the following results: RR in the first round of 5.48 % versus 5.61 %; RR in subsequent rounds of 2.52 % versus 2.65 %; CDR of 0.52 % versus 0.53 %; DCIS of 0.08 % versus 0.11 %; a rate of cancers with T-scores smaller than 1 cm of 0.11 % versus 0.11 %; PPV of 18.45 % versus 18.64 %; none of them was significantly different.
conclusionOur screening indicators are reassuring for the use of CR and DR, with CR operating at 60 % higher MGD. KEY POINTS: • Breast cancer screening can employ both computed (CR) and direct digital radiography (DR). • Screening performance parameters for CR and DR technology are not significantly different. • Screening parameters are in accordance with European Guidelines. • Radiation doses employed for CR are generally 60 % greater than for DR.
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.