SynthesisEuropean radiology2020
Digital zoom of the full-field digital mammogram versus magnification mammography: a systematic review.
Synthesis in European radiology, 2020. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing the diagnostic performance of MediXpar texture analysis for C-shaped canal morphology on panoramic radiographs: a pilot study.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Mammographically detected breast clustered microcalcifications localized by chest thin-section computed tomography.World journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo summarise and compare the performance of magnification mammography and digital zoom utilising a full-field digital mammography (FFDM) system in the detection and diagnosis of microcalcifications.
methodsWe ran an extended search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Engineering Village and Web of Science. Diagnostic test studies, experimental breast phantom studies and a Monte Carlo phantom study were included. A narrative approach was selected to summarise and compare findings regarding the detection of microcalcifications, while a hierarchical model with bivariate analysis was used for the meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing microcalcifications.
resultsNine studies were included. Phantom studies suggested that the size of microcalcifications, magnification or zoom factor, exposure factors and detector technology determine whether digital zoom is equivalent to magnification mammography in the detection of microcalcifications. Pooled sensitivity for magnification and zoom calculated from the diagnostic test studies was 0.93 (95% CI 0.84-0.97) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.70-0.94), respectively. Pooled specificity was 0.55 (95% CI 0.51-0.58) and 0.56 (95% CI 0.50-0.62), respectively. The differences between the sensitivities and specificities were not statistically significant.
conclusionsDigital zoom may be equivalent to magnification mammography. Diagnostic test studies and phantom studies using newer detector technology would contribute additional knowledge on this topic. KEY POINTS: • The performance of digital zoom is comparable to magnification for detecting microcalcifications when newer detector technology and optimised imaging procedures are utilised. • The accuracy of digital zoom appears equivalent to geometric magnification in diagnosing microcalcifications.
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.