Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28643094›Full record

Trial reportEuropean radiology2017

Accuracy and reading time for six strategies using digital breast tomosynthesis in women with mammographically negative dense breasts.

Alberto Stefano Tagliafico, Massimo Calabrese, Bianca Bignotti, Alessio Signori, Erica Fisci, Federica Rossi, Francesca Valdora, Nehmat Houssami

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Alberto Stefano TagliaficoDepartment of Health Sciences (DISSAL), Radiology Section, University of Genoa and Emergency Radiology, IRCCS AOU San Martino-IST, Genoa, Italy. alberto.tagliafico@unige.it.
Massimo CalabreseBreast Radiology, Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy.
Bianca BignottiDepartment of Health Sciences (DISSAL), Radiology Section, University of Genoa and Emergency Radiology, IRCCS AOU San Martino-IST, Genoa, Italy.
Alessio SignoriDepartment of Health Sciences (DISSAL), Radiology Section, University of Genoa and Emergency Radiology, IRCCS AOU San Martino-IST, Genoa, Italy.
Erica FisciDepartment of Health Sciences (DISSAL), Radiology Section, University of Genoa and Emergency Radiology, IRCCS AOU San Martino-IST, Genoa, Italy.
Federica RossiDepartment of Health Sciences (DISSAL), Radiology Section, University of Genoa and Emergency Radiology, IRCCS AOU San Martino-IST, Genoa, Italy.
Francesca ValdoraDepartment of Experimental Medicine (DIMES), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.
Nehmat HoussamiSydney School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Ospedale Policlinico San Martino · ITUniversity of Genoa · ITUniversity of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare six strategies using digital breast tomosynthesis in women with mammographically negative dense breasts. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis is a substudy of the 'ASTOUND' trial. 163 women who underwent tomosynthesis with synthetically reconstructed projection images (S-2D) inclusive of 13 (7.9%) cases diagnosed with breast cancer at histopathology after surgery were evaluated. Accuracy measures and screen-reading time of six reading strategies were assessed: (A) Single reading of S-2D alone, (B) single reading of tomosynthesis alone, (C) single reading of joint interpretation of tomosynthesis + S-2D, (D) double-reading of S-2D alone, (E) double reading of tomosynthesis alone, (F) double reading of joint interpretation of tomosynthesis + S-2D.

resultsThe median age of the patients was 53 years (range, 36-88 years). The highest global accuracy was obtained with double reading of tomosynthesis + S2D (F) with an AUC of 0.979 (p<0.001) and a mean reading time of 154 s versus 34 s for the fastest strategy (single reading of S-2D alone). The AUCs for the other five strategies did not differ from each other.

conclusionDouble reading of tomosynthesis+ S2D had the best accuracy of six screen-reading strategies although it had the longest reading time. KEY POINTS: • Tomosynthesis acquisitions are progressively implemented with reconstructed synthesized 2D images • Double reading using S-2D plus tomosynthesis had the highest global accuracy (p<0.001). • Double reading of S-2D plus tomosynthesis increased reading time.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreastBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMammographyMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedReproducibility of ResultsAccuracyBreast densityDense breastsDigital Breast TomosynthesisReading time

Identifiers

PMID28643094
OpenAlexW2665676251

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.