SynthesisThoracic cancer2020
A meta-analysis of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI in the diagnosis of breast cancer.
Synthesis in Thoracic cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 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
50 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- The Accuracy of Electrical Impedance Tomography for Breast Cancer Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.The breast journal · 2022Pooled it
- Diagnostic efficacy of sentinel lymph node in breast cancer under percutaneous contrast-enhanced ultrasound: An updated meta-analysis.Thoracic cancer · 2021Pooled it
- Comparative Analysis of CEM and Breast MRI: A Retrospective Study.Journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast lesions: qualitative and quantitative analyses.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Revealing artifacts in contrast-enhanced mammography: prevalence and implications for diagnostic accuracy.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- ESR Essentials: post-treatment breast cancer surveillance from mammography to a more personalised approach-practice recommendations by the European Society of Breast Imaging.European radiology · 2026Review
- Explainable Deep Learning for Breast Lesion Classification in Digital and Contrast-Enhanced Mammography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- From Innovation to Application: Can Emerging Imaging Techniques Transform Breast Cancer Diagnosis?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Head‑to‑head comparison of contrast‑enhanced mammography and MRI in assessing the tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer: a prospective, multireader study.La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
- Improving the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography through lesion conspicuity and enhancement quantification.European radiology · 2025Article
- Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Breast Lesion Assessment: Accuracy and Surgical Impact.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
- Roles of artificial intelligence and high frame-rate contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the differential diagnosis of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 4 breast nodules.Gland surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of Contrast-enhanced Mammography and Low-Energy Imaging with or without Supplemental Whole-Breast US in Breast Cancer Detection.Radiology · 2025Observational
- Contrast-enhanced mammography improves patient access to functional breast imaging.Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2025Review
- Factors Influencing Background Parenchymal Enhancement in Breast Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Retrospective Study.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- The value of contrast-enhanced energy-spectrum mammography combined with clinical indicators in detecting breast cancer in Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 lesions.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Reliability of Magseed® marking before neoadjuvant systemic therapy with subsequent contrast-enhanced mammography in patients with non-palpable breast cancer lesions after treatment: the MAGMA study.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2024Observational
- Contrast-enhanced mammography versus conventional imaging in women recalled from breast cancer screening (RACER trial): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled clinical trial.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo identify the performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for breast cancer diagnosis by pooling the open published data.
methodsA systematic review of studies relevant to CESM and MRI in the diagnosis of breast cancer were screened in the electronic databases of Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google scholar and CNKI. The methodical quality of the included publications was evaluated by the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2 (QUADAS-2). The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity and area under the ROC curve (AUC) were pooled and the true positive (TP), false positive (FP), false negative (FN) and true negative (TN) of the original studies were calculated.
resultsA total of 13 diagnostic publications were identified and included in the meta-analysis. Of those included, five were retrospective studies and the remaining eight were prospective work. The combined data indicating the pooled sensitivity and specificity of CESM and MRI were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95-0.98), 0.66 (95% CI: 0.59-0.71), 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95-0.98),and 0.52 (95% CI: 0.46-0.58), respectively. The pooled +LR and -LR for CESM were 2.70 (95% CI: 1.57-4.65), 0.06 (95% CI: 0.04-0.09), and 2.01 (95% CI: 1.78-2.26), 0.08 (95% CI: 0.05-0.11) for MRI, respectively. For the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), the pooled results of CESM and MRI were 60.15 (95% CI: 24.72-146.37) and 31.34 (95% CI: 19.61-50.08), respectively. The AUC of the symmetric receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was 0.9794 and 0.9157 for CESM and MRI, respectively, calculated using the Moses model in the diagnosis of breast cancer.
conclusionsBoth CESM and MRI are effective methods for the detection of breast cancer with high diagnostic sensitivity. The diagnostic performance of CESM appears to be more effective than MRI.
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.