ReviewBreast care (Basel, Switzerland)2019
Consensus Meeting of Breast Imaging: BI-RADS® and Beyond.
Review in Breast care (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep learning, radiomics and radiogenomics applications in the digital breast tomosynthesis: a systematic review.BMC bioinformatics · 2023Pooled it
- Time to Mammographic Density Decrease After Exposure to Tamoxifen.The oncologist · 2022Trial
- Topical Endoxifen for Mammographic Density Reduction-A Randomized Controlled Trial.The oncologist · 2022Trial
- Survey of the Senologic International Society (SIS) on the Use of Preoperative Breast MRI in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Global Perspective on Current Practice.European journal of breast health · 2026Article
- Article
- [Diagnosis of breast diseases in a certified breast center].Der Radiologe · 2021Review
- Breast MRI-the Importance of Type II and III Dynamic Curves Evaluation and Framing in BI-RADS 4C and 5 Score.Current health sciences journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 13 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Organizers of medical educational courses are often confronted with questions that are clinically relevant yet trespassing the frontiers of scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine at the point of care. Therefore, since 2007 organizers of breast teaching courses in German language met biannually to find a consensus in clinically relevant questions that have not been definitely answered by science. The questions were prepared during the 3 months before the meeting according to a structured process and finally agreed upon the day before the consensus meeting. At the consensus meeting, the open questions concerning 2D/3D mammography, breast ultrasound, MR mammography, interventions as well as risk-based imaging of the breast were presented first for electronic anonymized voting, and then the results of the audience were separately displayed from the expert votes. Thereafter, an introductory statement of the moderator was followed by pros/cons of two experts, and subsequently the final voting was performed. With ≥75% of votes of the expert panel, an answer qualified as a consensus statement. Seventeen consensus statements were gained, addressing for instance the use of 2D/3D mammography, breast ultrasound in screening, MR mammography in women with intermediate breast cancer risk, markers for localization of pathologic axillary lymph nodes, and standards in risk-based imaging of the breast. After the evaluation, comments from the experts on each field were gathered supplementarily. Methodology, transparency, and soundness of statements achieve a unique yield for all course organizers and provide solid pathways for decision making in breast imaging.
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.