ArticleInsights into imaging2017
Mammography: an update of the EUSOBI recommendations on information for women.
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.
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
50 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnostic performance of tomosynthesis plus synthetic mammography versus full-field digital mammography with or without tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of cancer · 2025Pooled it
- ESR Essentials: diagnostic work-up in patients with symptomatic breast disease-practice recommendations by the European Society of Breast Imaging.European radiology · 2025Guideline
- Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, Synthetic Mammography, and Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021Pooled it
- Breast imaging and cancer diagnosis during the COVID-19 pandemic: recommendations from the Italian College of Breast Radiologists by SIRM.La Radiologia medica · 2020Guideline
- Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer detection: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2020Pooled it
- Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): recommendations from the Italian College of Breast Radiologists (ICBR) by the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) and the Italian Group for Mammography Screening (GISMa).La Radiologia medica · 2017Guideline
- Added value of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in staging of malignant breast lesions-a feasibility study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2020Trial
- How to optimise breast cancer staging with contrast-enhanced mammography: current evidence and clinical implications.Insights into imaging · 2026Review
- Investigating the Average Glandular Dose and Exposure Parameters in Mammography Based on Compressed Breast Thickness and Imaging Projection: A Single-Centre Study in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence and breast cancer screening in Serbia: a dual-perspective qualitative study among radiologists and screening-aged women.Frontiers in radiology · 2026Article
- A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Modalities for Breast Cancer in European Countries.Cancers · 2025Review
- [Use of imaging methods in the current screening, diagnostics and treatment of breast cancer - Professional guidelines. 5th Breast Cancer Consensus Meeting (2025)].Magyar onkologia · 2025Article
- Understanding the risk of ionizing radiation in breast imaging: Concepts and quantities, clinical importance, and future directions.European journal of radiology · 2024Review
- [Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- Standardised and structured reporting in fetal magnetic resonance imaging: recommendations from the Fetal Task Force of the European Society of Paediatric Radiology.Pediatric radiology · 2024Review
- The paradox of MRI for breast cancer screening: high-risk and dense breasts-available evidence and current practice.Insights into imaging · 2024Review
- Clinical outcomes of screening and diagnostic mammography in a limited resource healthcare system.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Patients' perceptions of targeted breast ultrasound and digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic setting: A mixed methods study.PloS one · 2024Article
- Temporal Evolution and Associated Factors of Adherence to Mammography Screening among Women in Spain: Results from Two National Health Surveys (2017-2020).Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Assessing Mode of Recurrence in Breast Cancer to Identify an Optimised Follow-Up Pathway: 10-Year Institutional Review.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.