Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30476905›Full record

ArticleMedical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre2019

Comparison of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography for Detection of Breast Cancer in Kuwaiti Women.

Akram M Asbeutah, Nouralhuda Karmani, AbdulAziz A Asbeutah, Yasmin A Echreshzadeh, Abdullah A AlMajran, Khalid H Al-Khalifah

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Akram M AsbeutahDepartment of Radiologic Sciences, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Kuwait University, Kuwait City, Kuwait, asbeutah_akram@hotmail.com.
Nouralhuda KarmaniDepartment of Clinical Radiology, Clinical Breast Imaging Unit, Al-Sabah Hospital, Ministry of Health, Kuwait City, Kuwait.
AbdulAziz A AsbeutahDepartment of Surgery, Al-Amiri Hospital, Ministry of Health, Kuwait City, Kuwait.
Yasmin A EchreshzadehDepartment of Clinical Radiology, Clinical Breast Imaging Unit, Al-Sabah Hospital, Ministry of Health, Kuwait City, Kuwait.
Abdullah A AlMajranDepartment of Community Medicine and Behavioral Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, Kuwait City, Kuwait.
Khalid H Al-KhalifahDepartment of Radiologic Sciences, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Kuwait University, Kuwait City, Kuwait.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the sensitivity and specificity of digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for the detection of breast cancer in comparison to histopathology findings. SUBJECTS AND

methodsWe included 65 breast lesions in 58 women, each detected by two diagnostic mammography techniques - DM and DBT using Senographe Essential (GE Healthcare, Buc, France) - and subsequently confirmed by histopathology. The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System was used for characterizing the lesions.

resultsThe average age of women was 48.3 years (range 26-81 years). There were 34 malignant and 31 benign breast lesions. The sensitivity of DM and DBT was 73.5 and 100%, respectively, while the specificity was 67.7 and 94%, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed an overall diagnostic advantage of DBT over DM, with a significant difference between DBT and DM (p < 0.001). By performing Cohen's kappa test, we found that there was a strong level of agreement according to Altman guidelines between DBT and histopathology findings (0.97), but a weak agreement between DM and histopathology findings (0.47).

conclusionDBT improves the clinical accuracy of mammography by increasing both sensitivity and specificity. We believe that this improvement is due to improved image visibility and quality. These results could be of interest to health care institutions as they may impact their decision on whether to upgrade to DBT not only for diagnosis, but also for screening.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreastBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyMiddle AgedROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityBreast cancerDigital breast tomosynthesisDigital mammographyHistopathology

Identifiers

PMID30476905
PMCPMC6558339

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.