Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28561776›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2017

Qualitative Versus Quantitative Mammographic Breast Density Assessment: Applications for the US and Abroad.

Stamatia Destounis, Andrea Arieno, Renee Morgan, Christina Roberts, Ariane Chan

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System v2025: Key Updates in Mammography.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Stamatia DestounisElizabeth Wende Breast Care, LLC. Rochester, NY 14620, USA. sdestounis@ewbc.com.
Andrea ArienoElizabeth Wende Breast Care, LLC. Rochester, NY 14620, USA. aarieno@ewbc.com.
Renee MorganElizabeth Wende Breast Care, LLC. Rochester, NY 14620, USA. rmorgan@ewbc.com.
Christina RobertsVolpara Solutions Limited, Wellington 6011, New Zealand. christina.roberts@volparasolutions.com.
Ariane ChanVolpara Solutions Limited, Wellington 6011, New Zealand. ariane.chan@volparasolutions.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mammographic breast density (MBD) has been proven to be an important risk factor for breast cancer and an important determinant of mammographic screening performance. The measurement of density has changed dramatically since its inception. Initial qualitative measurement methods have been found to have limited consistency between readers, and in regards to breast cancer risk. Following the introduction of full-field digital mammography, more sophisticated measurement methodology is now possible. Automated computer-based density measurements can provide consistent, reproducible, and objective results. In this review paper, we describe various methods currently available to assess MBD, and provide a discussion on the clinical utility of such methods for breast cancer screening.

Indexed as

breast densitybreast imagingqualitative assessmentquantitative assessment

Identifiers

PMID28561776
PMCPMC5489950
OpenAlexW2617525350

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.