ReviewThe British journal of radiology2018
A review of mammographic positioning image quality criteria for the craniocaudal projection.
Review in The British journal of radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of Predeployment Retraction in Biopsy Marker Migration During Stereotactic Breast Biopsies: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of breast imaging · 2024Trial
- Comparison of two automated PGMI-based software tools for breast positioning quality assessment in DBT screening.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Subcategorisation of Data for AI Models in Healthcare: A Case Study in Mammography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Quantitative Evaluation of Pectoral Muscle Visualisation as an Indicator of Positioning Quality in Screening Mammography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Addressing Global Gaps in Mammography Screening for Improved Breast Cancer Detection: A Review of the Literature.Cureus · 2024Review
- Impact of Artificial Intelligence-driven Quality Improvement Software on Mammography Technical Repeat and Recall Rates.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2023Article
- Expanding Horizons: The Realities of CAD, the Promise of Artificial Intelligence, and Machine Learning's Role in Breast Imaging beyond Screening Mammography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Interobserver variability in quality assessment of magnetic resonance images.BMC medical imaging · 2020Article
- Full-field digital mammography: the '30% rule' and influences on visualisation of the pectoralis major muscle on the craniocaudal view of the breast.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2020Article
- Analysis of Technical Repeat Studies in Screening Mammography.Journal of breast imagingArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Detection of breast cancer is reliant on optimal breast positioning and the production of quality images. Two projections, the mediolateral oblique and craniocaudal (CC), are routinely performed. Determination of successful positioning and inclusion of all breast tissue is achieved through meeting stated image quality criteria. For the CC view, current image quality criteria are inconsistent. Absence of reliable anatomical markers, other than the nipple, further contribute to difficulties in assessing the quality of CC views. The aim of this paper was to explore published international quality standards to identify and find the origin of any CC positioning criteria which might provide for quantitative assessment. The pectoralis major (pectoral) muscle was identified as a key posterior anatomical structure to establish optimum breast tissue inclusion on mammographic projections. It forms the first two of the three main CC metrics that are frequently reported (1) visualization of the pectoral muscle, (2) measurement of the posterior nipple line and (3) depiction of retroglandular fat. This literature review explores the origin of the three metrics, and discusses three key publications, spanning 1992 to 1994, on which subsequent image quality standards have been based. The evidence base to support published CC metrics is sometimes not specified and more often, the same set of publications are cited, most often without critical evaluation. To conclude, there remains uncertainty if the metrics explored for the CC view support objective evaluation and reproducibility to confirm optimal breast positioning and quality images.
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.