Observational studyEuropean radiology2015
Does digital mammography suppose an advance in early diagnosis? Trends in performance indicators 6 years after digitalization.
Observational study in European radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Film-Screen Mammography in Population Screening: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021Pooled it
- Vaccines in Breast Cancer: Challenges and Breakthroughs.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Considerations for Evaluating the Introduction of New Cancer Screening Technology: Use of Interval Cancers to Assess Potential Benefits and Harms.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- [Digital Mammography as a Screening Tool in Korea].Taehan Yongsang Uihakhoe chi · 2021Review
- Importance of quality in breast cancer screening practice - a natural experiment in Alberta, Canada.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Comparison of Digital and Screen-Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of breast cancer · 2019Article
- Which indicators of early cancer diagnosis from population-based data sources are associated with short-term mortality and survival?Cancer epidemiology · 2018Article
- Effectiveness of and overdiagnosis from mammography screening in the Netherlands: population based study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2017Article
- Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?The British journal of radiology · 2016Review
- Double versus single reading of mammograms in a breast cancer screening programme: a cost-consequence analysis.European radiology · 2016Article
- Cross-national comparison of screening mammography accuracy measures in U.S., Norway, and Spain.European radiology · 2016Article
- Digital Mammography in Young Women: Is a Single View Sufficient?Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo provide a complete evaluation of the long-term impact of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) on the improvement of early diagnosis in a population-based screening program.
methodsWe included 82,961 screen-film mammograms (SFM) and 79,031 FFDM from women aged 50-69 screened biennially from 1995-2010 in Spain and followed-up to 2012. The first screening round of the program was excluded. Rates of cancer detection, interval cancer, tumoral characteristics and other quality indicators were compared between SFM and FFDM periods using the Chi-square test. Multivariate logistic regression models were fitted.
resultsDetection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) significantly increased with FFDM (0.05 % vs 0.09 %; p = 0.010), along with the proportion of small invasive cancers (<20 mm) (69.37 % vs 78.90 %; p = 0.040). The false-positive rate decreased with FFDM (4.79 % vs 3.38 %; p < 0.001) without differences in the cancer detection rate (0.42 % vs 0.43 %; p = 0.685) or in the interval cancer rate (0.14 % vs 0.14 %; p = 0.816). Adjusted models showed a significant increase in the detection of DCIS in the FFDM periods.
conclusionDigitalization has supposed an improvement in early diagnosis because DCIS and small invasive cancers increased without a change in detection rate. Moreover, false-positive reduction without an increase in the interval cancer rate was confirmed.
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.