ReviewAmerican journal of surgery2019
Redefining the sensitivity of screening mammography: A review.
Review in American journal of surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does the addition of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography to B-mode ultrasonography improve diagnostic accuracy for breast cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2026Article
- Influence of gadolinium-based contrast agent (GBCA) on the diffusion weightings of breast lesions: an intra-patient analysis.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Colormaps Matter: Evaluating Their Impact on CNN-Based Clinical Thermal Imaging.Proceedings of machine learning research · 2026Article
- Assessment of an unsupervised denoising approach based on Noise2Void in digital mammography.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A consultation and work-up diagnosis protocol for a multicancer early detection test: a case series study.Future science OA · 2024Article
- Applicability of Quantum Dots in Breast Cancer Diagnostic and Therapeutic Modalities-A State-of-the-Art Review.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Prognostic potential of CUL3 ligase with differential roles in luminal A and basal type breast cancer tumors.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Knowledge, attitude, and practice of breast self-examination is associated with general self-care and cultural factors: a study from Tamil Nadu, India.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Status of breast cancer detection in young women and potential of liquid biopsy.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Use of Infrared Thermography in Medical Diagnosis, Screening, and Disease Monitoring: A Scoping Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Influence of mammographic density and compressed breast thickness on true mammographic sensitivity: a cohort study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Breast Cancer in Asia: Incidence, Mortality, Early Detection, Mammography Programs, and Risk-Based Screening Initiatives.Cancers · 2022Review
- Radiomics in photon-counting dedicated breast CT: potential of texture analysis for breast density classification.European radiology experimental · 2022Article
- How Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Does the Body, or Why Epistemology Alone Cannot Explain this Controversial Breast Cancer Treatment.The Journal of medical humanities · 2022Article
- Applied Machine Learning in Spiral Breast-CT: Can We Train a Deep Convolutional Neural Network for Automatic, Standardized and Observer Independent Classification of Breast Density?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Breast cancer diagnosis using frequency decomposition of surface motion of actuated breast tissue.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Cone-Beam Breast Computed Tomography: Time for a New Paradigm in Breast Imaging.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Article
- A Practical, Clinical User-Friendly Format for Breast Ultrasound Report.European journal of breast health · 2021Article
- The relationship between breast density, age, and mammographic lesion type among Chinese breast cancer patients from a large clinical dataset.BMC medical imaging · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
From its inception, screening mammography has enjoyed a perceived level of sensitivity that is inconsistent with available evidence. The original data that imparted erroneous beliefs about sensitivity were based on a variety of misleading definitions and approaches, such as the inclusion of palpable tumors, using the inverse of interval cancer rates (often tied to an arbitrary 12 month interval), and quoting prevalence screen sensitivity wherein tumors are larger than those found on incidence screens. This review addresses the background for the overestimation of mammographic sensitivity, and how a major adjustment in our thinking is overdue now that multi-modality imaging allows us to determine real time mammographic sensitivity. Although a single value for mammographic sensitivity is disingenuous, given the wide range based on background density, it is important to realize that a sensitivity gap between belief and reality still exists in the early detection of breast cancer using mammography alone, in spite of technologic advances. Failure to recognize this gap diminishes the acceptance of adjunct methods of breast imaging that greatly complement detection rates.
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.