ArticleKorean journal of radiology2019
Effect of Different Types of Mammography Equipment on Screening Outcomes: A Report by the Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea.
Article in Korean journal of radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biennial Mammography Performance in the Korean National Cancer Screening Program From 2009 to 2020.Korean journal of radiology · 2025Article
- [Digital Mammography as a Screening Tool in Korea].Taehan Yongsang Uihakhoe chi · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the effects of different types of mammography equipment on screening outcomes by comparing the performance of film-screen mammography (FSM), computed radiography mammography (CRM), and digital mammography (DM). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled 128756 sets of mammograms from 10 hospitals participating in the Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea between 2005 and 2010. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of the types of mammography equipment by analyzing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with a 95% confidence interval (CI); performance indicators, including recall rate, cancer detection rate (CDR), positive predictive value₁ (PPV₁), sensitivity, specificity, and interval cancer rate (ICR); and the types of breast cancer pathology.
resultsThe AUCs were 0.898 (95% CI, 0.878-0.919) in DM, 0.860 (0.815-0.905) in FSM, and 0.866 (0.828-0.903) in CRM (
conclusionIn comparison to FSM and CRM, DM showed better performance in terms of the recall rate, CDR, PPV₁, and specificity, although the AUCs were similar, and more CISs were detected using DM. The application of DM may help to improve the quality of mammography screenings. However, the overdiagnosis issue of CIS using DM should be evaluated.
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.