Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27854006›Full record

ArticleInsights into imaging2017

Mammography: an update of the EUSOBI recommendations on information for women.

Francesco Sardanelli, Eva M Fallenberg, Paola Clauser, Rubina M Trimboli, Julia Camps-Herrero, Thomas H Helbich, Gabor Forrai, European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI), with language review by Europa Donna–The European Breast Cancer Coalition

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insights into imaging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. [Insights into imaging · 2024
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Francesco SardanelliDepartment of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. francesco.sardanelli@unimi.it.
Eva M FallenbergDepartment of Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin, Germany.
Paola ClauserDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Rubina M TrimboliIntegrative Biomedical Research PhD Program, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Julia Camps-HerreroDepartment of Radiology, Hospital de la Ribera, Alzira, Valencia, Spain.
Thomas H HelbichDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Gabor ForraiDepartment of Radiology, Duna Medical Center, Budapest, Hungary.
European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI), with language review by Europa Donna–The European Breast Cancer Coalition

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article summarises the information to be offered to women about mammography. After a delineation of the aim of early diagnosis of breast cancer, the difference between screening mammography and diagnostic mammography is explained. The need to bring images and reports from the previous mammogram (and from other recent breast imaging examinations) is highlighted. Mammography technique and procedure are described with particular attention to discomfort and pain experienced by a small number of women who undergo the test. Information is given on the recall during a screening programme and on the request for further work-up after a diagnostic mammography. The logic of the mammography report and of classification systems such as R1-R5 and BI-RADS is illustrated, and brief but clear information is given about the diagnostic performance of the test, with particular reference to interval cancers, i.e., those cancers that are missed at screening mammography. Moreover, the breast cancer risk due to radiation exposure from mammography is compared to the reduction in mortality obtained with the test, and the concept of overdiagnosis is presented with a reliable estimation of its extent. Information about new mammographic technologies (tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography) is also given. Finally, frequently asked questions are answered. KEY POINTS: • Direct digital mammography should be preferred to film-screen or phosphor plates. • Screening (in asymptomatic women) should be distinguished from diagnosis (in symptomatic women). • A breast symptom has to be considered even after a negative mammogram. • Digital breast tomosynthesis increases cancer detection and decreases the recall rate. • Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography can help in cancer detection and lesion characterisation.

Indexed as

Breast cancerContrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM)Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)MammographyScreening

Identifiers

PMID27854006
PMCPMC5265195

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.