ArticleMedical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre2018
Investigation of Exposure Factors for Various Breast Composition and Thicknesses in Digital Screening Mammography Related to Breast Dose.
Article in Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Addressing Global Gaps in Mammography Screening for Improved Breast Cancer Detection: A Review of the Literature.Cureus · 2024Review
- Image Quality and Radiation Dose for Fibrofatty Breast using Target/filter Combinations in Two Digital Mammography Systems.Journal of clinical imaging science · 2020Article
- Comparison of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography for Detection of Breast Cancer in Kuwaiti Women.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2019Article
- Kuwait National Mammography Screening Program: outcomes of 5 years of screening in Kuwaiti women.Annals of Saudi medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the effect of exposure factors used in digital screening mammography on image quality of different breast compositions. MATERIAL AND
methodsA digital mammography unit, with tungsten (W) as target, rhodium (Rh) and silver (Ag) as filters, and amorphous selenium detectors, was used to image Computerized Imaging Reference Systems (CIRS) Model 12A phantoms of thickness 4, 5, and 6 cm. Images of each phantom were obtained using target-filter combinations of W/Rh and W/Ag, at 28, 30, and 32 kVp. Images were evaluated by 5 senior technologists with experience in mammography. Image scores were assigned, for each type of feature present in the phantom. Statistical analysis was performed using nonparametric tests to compare sets of image scores at p = 0.05.
resultsA small but statistically significant improvement was detected in the visibility of microcalcifications (8.8 ± 0.2; p = 0.031) for the W/Rh combination but this did not show any differences in the visibility of masses or fibers. The entrance skin dose (ESD) and mean glandular dose (MGD) were lower for the W/Ag (ESD = 1.30-3.70; MGD = 0.44-0.93 mGy) combination compared to W/Rh (ESD = 1.66-5.40; MGD = 0.52-1.12 mGy). The Mann-Whitney test revealed that 30-kV exposure with the W/Rh combination showed a significantly better visibility of specks in the 30/70 phantom compared to other exposures.
conclusionThe use of an Rh filter showed a better image quality for all phantoms. 28 and 30 kVp with the W/Rh combination provided a slightly better image quality, and the MGD is less than 1.2 mGy.
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.