SynthesisBMC cancer2018
Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening and diagnosis in women with dense breasts - a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
49 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The screening value of mammography for breast cancer: an overview of 28 systematic reviews with evidence mapping.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic performance of tomosynthesis plus synthetic mammography versus full-field digital mammography with or without tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography in Women With a Family History of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.Clinical breast cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical guidelines for the management of mammographic density: a systematic review of breast screening guidelines worldwide.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2024Pooled it
- Supplemental Screening as an Adjunct to Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening in People With Dense Breasts: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2023Pooled it
- Comparison of Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Cone-Beam Breast Computed Tomography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Approach.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Pooled it
- Radiation exposure and screening yield by digital breast tomosynthesis compared to mammography: results of the TOSYMA Trial breast density related.European radiology · 2025Trial
- Evaluating artificial intelligence-generated synthesized mammography as a standalone alternative to digital mammography with or without tomosynthesis.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Comparison of stationary digital chest tomosynthesis to portable chest radiographs: A patient study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Diagnostic sensitivity of mammography and magnetic resonance imaging for ductal carcinomaChinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2025Article
- Imaging pathways in spondyloarthritis: integrating radiography, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, low-dose computed tomography, and artificial intelligence methods : Radiology and AI in SpA.Rheumatology international · 2025Review
- Impact of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis on Extra Views and Concomitant Ultrasound Examinations in One Year Post Breast-Conserving Surgery Patients.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2025Article
- Deep Learning in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Current Status, Challenges, and Future Trends.MedComm · 2025Review
- Early detection and analysis of accurate breast cancer for improved diagnosis using deep supervised learning for enhanced patient outcomes.PeerJ. Computer science · 2025Article
- Estimation of the absorbed dose in simultaneous digital breast tomosynthesis and mechanical imaging.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2025Article
- A New Paradigm for Reading Screening Mammograms.Radiology · 2024Article
- Current status and quality of prognosis prediction models of non-small cell lung cancer constructed using computed tomography (CT)-based radiomics: a systematic review and radiomics quality score 2.0 assessment.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Review
- AI Systems for Mammography with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Expectations and Challenges.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2024Article
- Improving mammography interpretation for both novice and experienced readers: a comparative study of two commercial artificial intelligence software.European radiology · 2024Article
- Nomogram for preoperative differentiation of benign and malignant breast tumors using contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast CT (CE CB-BCT) quantitative imaging and assessment features.La Radiologia medica · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to systematically review and to meta-analyse the accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital mammography (DM) in women with mammographically dense breasts in screening and diagnosis.
methodsTwo independent reviewers identified screening or diagnostic studies reporting at least one of four outcomes (cancer detection rate-CDR, recall rate, sensitivity and specificity) for DBT and DM in women with mammographically dense breasts. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. Meta-analysis of CDR and recall rate used a random effects model. Summary ROC curve summarized sensitivity and specificity.
resultsSixteen studies were included (five diagnostic; eleven screening). In diagnosis, DBT increased sensitivity (84%-90%) versus DM alone (69%-86%) but not specificity. DBT improved CDR versus DM alone (RR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.02-1.31). In screening, DBT + DM increased CDR versus DM alone (RR: 1.33, 95% CI 1.20-1.47 for retrospective studies; RR: 1.52, 95% CI 1.08-2.11 for prospective studies). Recall rate was significantly reduced by DBT + DM in retrospective studies (RR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.80) but not in two prospective studies (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.76-1.63).
conclusionIn women with mammographically dense breasts, DBT+/-DM increased CDR significantly (versus DM) in screening and diagnosis. In diagnosis, DBT+/-DM increased sensitivity but not specificity. The effect of DBT + DM on recall rate in screening dense breasts varied between studies.
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.