ArticleThe British journal of radiology2016
Mammography in females with an implanted medical device: impact on image quality, pain and anxiety.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigation of the effectiveness of cooling spray on mammography comfort.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- From Standard Establishment to Precision Intelligence: Research Progress in Quality Control of Mammography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Patient Preference and Adherence in Mammography Screening: A Narrative Review.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Review
- Feasibility, safety, and comfort of the '2BB' (2 cm below the bra) position of insertable cardiac monitors in women: the IN-WOMEN-ICM pilot study.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2024Article
- An unusual artifact observed on screening mammography in a patient with an LVAD.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Breast MRI in patients with implantable loop recorder: initial experience.European radiology · 2024Article
- Cosmetic considerations for placement of deep brain stimulation pulse generator: the submammary subfascial approach.Acta neurochirurgica · 2023Article
- Influence of Discomfort Tolerance of Women who Undergo Mammography on the Perceived Pain Intensity Due to the Procedure.European journal of breast health · 2021Article
- Breast Implant Prevalence in the Dutch Female Population Assessed by Chest Radiographs.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2020Article
- Breast Implants and the Risk of Anaplastic Large-Cell Lymphoma in the Breast.JAMA oncology · 2018Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the image quality of mammograms in females with an implanted medical device (IMD), to evaluate pain and anxiety during mammography in these females and to investigate the experience of radiographers.
methodsImage quality was evaluated by two radiographers and one radiologist in the images of females with an IMD participating in the Dutch screening programme (clients). Pain and anxiety were scored using a Numeric Rating Scale in both clients visiting a screening organization and patients from the Isala Hospital, Zwolle. Experience of screening radiographers was collected with a questionnaire.
resultsImages of the breast with IMD showed reduced contrast in craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral-oblique (MLO) views [by both the radiographers and radiologist (range: 11-29%)], less projected breast tissue [only radiographers; CC lateral side: 25.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 18.7-32.2] and reduced projection of the pectoral muscle (only radiographers; MLO width pectoral muscle: 31.5%, 95% CI: 24.4-38.7). Clients experienced more pain and anxiety during mammography in the breast with IMD compared to the breast without IMD in the breast (pain difference CC: 0.48 ± 0.16, p = 0.003; pain difference MLO: 0.46 ± 0.16, p = 0.004; anxiety difference 1.30 ± 0.22; p < 0.001). Patients experienced more pain (1.05 ± 0.12; p < 0.001) and anxiety (1.22 ± 0.15; p < 0.001) after placement of IMD. Radiographers are more cautious, more anxious and use less compression during mammography of breasts with IMD.
conclusionImage quality in a breast with an IMD could be improved by projecting more breast tissue on the mammogram, thereby including (part of) the IMD between the paddles, if required. In addition, radiographers should pay sufficient attention to reducing discomfort both before and during the screening examination. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Little is known about the quality of mammography in females with an IMD or how these females and radiographers experience the screening examination. The results of our study showed that having an IMD could result in a suboptimal mammogram and increased discomfort.
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.