ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2019
Diagnostic Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Suspicious Calcifications From Various Populations: A Comparison With Full-field Digital Mammography.
Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic study on blockchain technology for genomic data management in healthcare: approaches, challenges, and research opportunities.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2026Pooled it
- Accuracy of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Detecting Breast Cancer in the Diagnostic Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Korean journal of radiology · 2021Pooled it
- Dual-modality CAD for breast cancer screening: dealing with discordant diagnosis between mammography and tomography.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Predicting the quality of digital mammography from the perspective of detectability of microcalcifications: A Radiomics approach.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Review
- The ability of digital breast tomosynthesis to reduce additional examinations in older women.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- A comparative efficacy study of diagnostic digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in BI-RADS 4 breast cancer diagnosis.European journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Diagnostic Efficacy across Dense and Non-Dense Breasts during Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Ultrasound Assessment for Recalled Women.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Clinical and X-ray characteristics for expressions of different receptors in patients with breast cancer.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2021Article
- The role of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: a manufacturer- and metrics-specific analysis.Cancer management and research · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The diagnostic performance difference between digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and conventional full-field digital mammography (FFDM) for breast suspicious calcifications from various populations is unclear. The objective of this study is to determine whether DBT exhibits the diagnostic advantage for breast suspicious calcifications from various populations compared with FFDM. Three hundred and five patients were enrolled (of which seven patients with bilateral lesions) and 312 breasts images were retrospectively analyzed by three radiologists independently. The postoperative pathology of breast calcifications was the gold standard. Breast cancer was diagnosed utilizing DBT and FFDM with sensitivities of 92.9% and 88.8%, specificities of 87.9% and 75.2%, positive predictive values of 77.8% and 62.1%, negative predictive values of 96.4% and 93.6%, respectively. DBT exhibited significantly higher diagnostic accuracy for benign calcifications compared with FFDM (87.9%
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.