ArticleBreast cancer : basic and clinical research2017
Visualization of Breast Microcalcifications on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and 2-Dimensional Digital Mammography Using Specimens.
Article in Breast cancer : basic and clinical research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Suspicious Calcifications From Various Populations: A Comparison With Full-field Digital Mammography.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to compare the visibility of microcalcifications of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) using breast specimens. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty-one specimens' DBT and FFDM were retrospectively reviewed by four readers.
resultsThe image quality of microcalcifications of DBT was rated as superior or equivalent in 71.0% by reader 1, 67.8% by reader 2, 64.5% by reader 3, and 80.6% by reader 4. The Fleiss kappa statistic for agreement among readers was 0.31.
conclusionsWe suggest that image quality of DBT appears to be comparable with or better than FFDM in terms of revealing microcalcifications.
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.