ArticleSaudi journal of biological sciences2019
Estimation of cancer risks during mammography procedure in Saudi Arabia.
Article in Saudi journal of biological sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigating the Average Glandular Dose and Exposure Parameters in Mammography Based on Compressed Breast Thickness and Imaging Projection: A Single-Centre Study in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- An Analysis of Acquisition Dose in Male Mammography.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- Estimating Local Diagnostic Reference Levels for Mammography in Dubai.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The Impact of Data Management on the Achievable Dose and Efficiency of Mammography and Radiography During the COVID-19 Era: A Facility-Based Cohort Study.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2023Article
- Regression Analysis between the Different Breast Dose Quantities Reported in Digital Mammography and Patient Age, Breast Thickness, and Acquisition Parameters.Journal of imaging · 2022Article
- Sensing mammographic density using single-sided portable Nuclear Magnetic Resonance.Saudi journal of biological sciences · 2022Article
- Comparison of Mean Glandular Dose between Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- The Effect of Breast Size and Density in Turkish Women on Radiation Dose in Full-Field Digital Mammography.European journal of breast health · 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aims of the present work were to quantify radiation doses arises from patients' exposure in mammographic X-ray imaging procedures and to estimate the radiation induced cancer risk. Sixty patients were evaluated using a calibrated digital mammography unit at King Khaled Hospital and Prince Sultan Center, Alkharj, Saudi Arabia. The average patient age (years) was 44.4 ± 10 (26-69). The average and range of exposure parameters were 29.1 ± 1.9 (24.0-33.0) and 78.4 ± 17.5 (28.0-173.0) for X-ray tube potential (kVp) and current multiplied by the exposure time (s) (mAs), respectively. The MGD (mGy) per single projection for craniocaudal (CC), Medio lateral oblique (MLO) and lateromedial (LM) was 1.02 ± 0.2 (0.4-1.8), 1.1 ± 0.3 (0.5-1.8), 1.1 ± 0.3 (0.5-1.9) per procedure, in that order. The average cancer risk per projection is 177 per million procedures. The cancer risk is significant during multiple image acquisition. The study revealed that 80% of the procedures with normal findings. However, precise justification is required especially for young patients.
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.