ReviewInternational journal of women's health2014
Update on new technologies in digital mammography.
Review in International journal of women's health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the FUSION-X-US-II prototype to combine automated breast ultrasound and tomosynthesis.European radiology · 2021Article
- The cost-effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis in a population breast cancer screening program.European radiology · 2020Article
- Breast Density of Mammography is Correlated with Reproductive Risk Factors Regardless of Menopausal Status: A Cross-Sectional Study of the Korean National Screening Program.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2020Article
- Initial results of the FUSION-X-US prototype combining 3D automated breast ultrasound and digital breast tomosynthesis.European radiology · 2018Article
- An overview of mammographic density and its association with breast cancer.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2018Review
- Digital Mammography in Young Women: Is a Single View Sufficient?Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2016Article
- The effect of anatomical noise on perception of low contrast in intra-oral radiographs: an in vitro study.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite controversy regarding mammography's efficacy, it continues to be the most commonly used breast cancer-screening modality. With the development of digital mammography, some improved benefit has been shown in women with dense breast tissue. However, the density of breast tissue continues to limit the sensitivity of conventional mammography. We discuss the development of some derivative digital technologies, primarily digital breast tomosynthesis, and their strengths, weaknesses, and potential patient impact.
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.