Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29125335›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of radiology2018

A review of mammographic positioning image quality criteria for the craniocaudal projection.

Rhonda-Joy I Sweeney, Sarah J Lewis, Peter Hogg, Mark F McEntee

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

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

4 authors.

Rhonda-Joy I Sweeney1 Discipline of Medical Radiation Science,Faculty of Health Science and Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney , Faculty of Health Science and Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney , Lidcombe, NSW , Australia.
Sarah J Lewis1 Discipline of Medical Radiation Science,Faculty of Health Science and Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney , Faculty of Health Science and Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney , Lidcombe, NSW , Australia.
Peter Hogg2 Directorate of Radiography,University of Salford, Allerton Building , University of Salford, Allerton Building , Salford , UK.
Mark F McEntee1 Discipline of Medical Radiation Science,Faculty of Health Science and Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney , Faculty of Health Science and Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney , Lidcombe, NSW , Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Patient PositioningFemaleHumansMammographyPectoralis Muscles

Identifiers

PMID29125335
PMCPMC5965788

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.