ArticleRadiology2020
Five Consecutive Years of Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Outcomes by Screening Year and Round.
Article in Radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
40 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 104 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Cone-Beam Breast Computed Tomography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Approach.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Pooled it
- Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, Synthetic Mammography, and Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021Pooled it
- Accuracy and Effectiveness of Mammography versus Mammography and Tomosynthesis for Population-Based Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Scientific reports · 2020Pooled it
- Development and performance evaluation of an upright dedicated cone-beam breast CT system.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Detecting Performance Drift in AI Models for Medical Image Analysis Using CUSUM Chart.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Breast MRI to Screen Women With Extremely Dense Breasts.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2025Review
- Deep Learning in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Current Status, Challenges, and Future Trends.MedComm · 2025Review
- Health Technologies and Impermissible Delays: The Case of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.Science and engineering ethics · 2025Article
- Change in Indications and Outcomes for Stereotactic Biopsy Following Transition from Full Field Digital Mammography + Digital Breast Tomosynthesis to Full Field Synthetic Mammography + Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Estimation of the absorbed dose in simultaneous digital breast tomosynthesis and mechanical imaging.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2025Article
- Advances in breast cancer diagnosis: a comprehensive review of imaging, biosensors, and emerging wearable technologies.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: an ethical perspective.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- Article
- Exploring advanced 2D acquisitions in breast tomosynthesis: T-shaped and Pentagon geometries.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2024Article
- An Efficient Deep Neural Network to Classify Large 3D Images With Small Objects.IEEE transactions on medical imaging · 2024Article
- Article
- Prospective Multicenter Diagnostic Performance of Technologist-Performed Screening Breast Ultrasound After Tomosynthesis in Women With Dense Breasts (the DBTUST).Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023Article
- Preoperative localization of breast lesions: Comparing digital breast tomosynthesis-guided radioactive seed localization versus standard 2D stereotactic radioactive seed localization.Clinical imaging · 2023Article
- Health Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness of Children's Oncology Group Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines for Chest-Irradiated Hodgkin Lymphoma Survivors.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023Article
- Cumulative 6-Year Risk of Screen-Detected Ductal Carcinoma In Situ by Screening Frequency.JAMA network open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background Limited data exist beyond prevalence rounds of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening. Purpose To compare DBT outcomes over multiple years and rounds to outcomes of digital mammography (DM) screening. Materials and Methods Retrospective analysis included 1 year of DM and 5 years of DBT screening (September 2011 to September 2016); 67 350 examinations were performed in 29 310 women. Recall rate (RR) percentage, cancer detection rate (CDR) per 1000 women screened, false-negative rate per 1000 women screened, positive predictive value of recall (PPV1) percentage, positive predictive value of biopsies performed percentage, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. Cancers diagnosed within 1 year of screening were captured by means of linkage to state cancer registry, and biologic characteristics were grouped by prognostic factors. Performance trends across DBT rounds were compared with those from DM rounds by using logistic regression to account for examinations in the same woman. Analyses were adjusted for age, race, breast density, baseline examination, and reader. Results There were 56 839 DBT and 10 511 DM examinations. The mean patient age (± standard deviation) was 56 years ±11 for the entire cohort, 55 years ±11 for the DBT group, and 57 years ±11 for the DM group. RRs were significantly lower for the DBT group (8.0%, 4522 of 56 839; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.7, 8.2) than for the DM group (10.4%, 1094 of 10 511; 95% CI: 9.8, 11.0) (
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.