ReviewMagnetic resonance imaging clinics of North America2018
Use of Breast-Specific PET Scanners and Comparison with MR Imaging.
Review in Magnetic resonance imaging clinics of North America, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing dedicated breast PET performance in breast cancer screening alongside digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and ultrasound: a reader's insight.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2024Article
- Case report: Possible role of low-dose PEM for avoiding unneeded procedures associated with false-positive or equivocal breast MRI results.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- The current role of nuclear medicine in breast cancer.The British journal of radiology · 2023Review
- Evaluation of a High-Sensitivity Organ-Targeted PET Camera.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Review
- Characterisation of MRI Indeterminate Breast Lesions Using Dedicated Breast PET and Prone FDG PET-CT in Patients with Breast Cancer-A Proof-of-Concept Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2020Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
The goals of this article are to discuss the role of breast-specific PET imaging of women with breast cancer, compare the clinical performance of positron emission mammography (PEM) and MR imaging for current indications, and provide recommendations for when women should undergo PEM instead of breast MR imaging.
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.