Editorial comment: cone-beam and phase contrast CT: new horizons in breast imaging?

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

1. Diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam breast computed tomography: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis.European radiology · 2019
   Pooled it
2. Dedicated breast CT: state of the art-Part I. Historical evolution and technical aspects.European radiology · 2022
   Review
3. Comparison of propagation-based CT using synchrotron radiation and conventional cone-beam CT for breast imaging.European radiology · 2020
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast-CT (CBBCT): clinical performance compared to mammography and MRI.2018

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

Indexed as