Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29736009›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of cancer2018

Addition of ultrasound to mammography in the case of dense breast tissue: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Matejka Rebolj, Valentina Assi, Adam Brentnall, Dharmishta Parmar, Stephen W Duffy

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Convolutional-transformer fusion of ultrasound and diffuse optical tomography for breast lesion classification.Computerized medical imaging and graphics : the official journal of the Computerized Medical Imaging Society · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Matejka ReboljCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9597-645X
Valentina AssiEdinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Adam BrentnallCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Dharmishta ParmarCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Stephen W DuffyCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK. s.w.duffy@qmul.ac.uk.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16892Cancer Research UK C569/A16891Cancer Research UK C8162/A16892Department of Health 106/0001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMammography is less effective in detecting cancer in dense than in fatty breasts.

methodsWe undertook a systematic search in PubMed to identify studies on women with dense breasts who underwent screening with mammography supplemented with ultrasound. A meta-analysis was undertaken on the proportion of cancers detected only by ultrasound, out of all screen-detected cancers, and the proportion of women with negative mammography who were referred for assessment following ultrasound screening.

resultsTwenty-nine studies satisfied our inclusion criteria. The proportion of total cancers detected only by ultrasound was 0.29 (95% CI: 0.27-0.31), consistent with an approximately 40% increase in the detection of cancers compared to mammography. In the studied populations, this translated into an additional 3.8 (95% CI: 3.4-4.2) screen-detected cases per 1000 mammography-negative women. About 13% (32/248) of cancers were in situ from 17 studies with information on this subgroup. Ultrasound approximately doubled the referral for assessment in three studies with these data.

conclusionsStudies have consistently shown an increased detection of breast cancer by supplementary ultrasound screening. An inclusion of supplementary ultrasound into routine screening will need to consider the availability of ultrasound and diagnostic assessment capacities.

Indexed as

BreastBreast DensityBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma in SituFemaleHumansMammographyMultimodal ImagingUltrasonography, Mammary

Identifiers

PMID29736009
PMCPMC6008336

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.