Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28374502›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical radiation sciences2017

The role of digital breast tomosynthesis in the breast assessment clinic: a review.

Suneeta Mall, Sarah Lewis, Patrick Brennan, Jennie Noakes, Claudia Mello-Thoms

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. [Digital breast tomosynthesis in diagnosis of dense breast lesions].Zhejiang da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Zhejiang University. Medical sciences · 2019
    Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Suneeta MallFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Lidcombe, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6763-7514
Sarah LewisFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Lidcombe, New South Wales, Australia.
Patrick BrennanFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Lidcombe, New South Wales, Australia.
Jennie NoakesNorthern Sydney & Central Coast BreastScreen, Royal North Shore Hospital, St. Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.
Claudia Mello-ThomsFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Lidcombe, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mammography has long been considered as the primary technique in breast cancer detection and assessment. Despite low specificity, mammography has been preferred over other contemporary techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT) and ultrasonography (US) due to superior sensitivity and significant health economic benefits. The development of a new technique, a limited angle cone beam pseudo-three-dimensional tomosynthesis, digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), has gained momentum. Several preliminary studies and ongoing trials are showing evidence of the benefits of DBT in improving lesion visibility, accuracy of cancer detection and observer performance. This raises the possibility of adoption of DBT in the breast cancer assessment clinic, wherein confirming or dismissing the presence of malignancy (at the potential site identified during screening) is of utmost importance. Identification of suspected malignancy in terms of lesion characteristics and location is also essential in assessment. In this literature review, we evaluate the role of DBT for use in breast cancer assessment and its future in biopsy.

Indexed as

BreastBreast NeoplasmsHumansMammographySensitivity and SpecificityAssessmentbiopsybreast cancerDBTdiagnosisdigital breast tomosynthesis

Identifiers

PMID28374502
PMCPMC5587657

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.