SynthesisMedicine2019
Impact of full field digital mammography diagnosis for female patients with breast cancer.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Study Protocol Titles: Erratum.Medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious clinical studies have reported that full field digital mammography (FFDM) can be used for diagnosis on breast cancer (BC) with promising outcome results. However, no study systematically investigates its diagnostic impact on female patients with BC. Thus, this systematic review will assess the accurate of FFDM diagnosis on BC.
methodsIn this study, we will perform a comprehensive search strategy in the databases as follows: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDILINE, PSYCINFO, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Information, and Wanfang Data from inception to February 28, 2019. All case-controlled studies exploring the impacts of FFDM diagnosis for patients BC will be fully considered for inclusion in this study. Two authors will independently scan the title and abstracts for relevance, and assess full texts for inclusion. They will also independently extract data and will assess methodological qualify for each included study by using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. RevMan V.5.3 software (London, UK) and Stata V.12.0 software (Texas, USA) will be used to pool the data and to conduct the meta-analysis.
resultsThe sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio of FFDM will be used to determine the diagnostic accuracy of FFDM for the diagnosis of patients with BC.
conclusionIts findings will provide latest evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of FFDM in female patients with BC. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019125338.
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.