SynthesisScientific reports2020
Accuracy and Effectiveness of Mammography versus Mammography and Tomosynthesis for Population-Based Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The screening value of mammography for breast cancer: an overview of 28 systematic reviews with evidence mapping.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic performance of tomosynthesis plus synthetic mammography versus full-field digital mammography with or without tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography in Women With a Family History of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.Clinical breast cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Asymmetric scatter kernel estimation neural network for digital breast tomosynthesis.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2025Article
- Exploring potent miRNA combinations for detecting early-stage breast cancer.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2025Article
- Factors associated with false-positive screening mammography in São Paulo, Brazil.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Performance Metrics of Mammography Screening Programmes in Primary Health Care Centres in Bahrain.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Advances in breast cancer diagnosis: a comprehensive review of imaging, biosensors, and emerging wearable technologies.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Integrative hybrid deep learning for enhanced breast cancer diagnosis: leveraging the Wisconsin Breast Cancer Database and the CBIS-DDSM dataset.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- [Value of routine transpedicular biopsies in kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty for vertebral compression fractures : A survey among 250 spine surgeons].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Article
- MicroRNA targeting: A novel therapeutic intervention for ovarian cancer.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2023Review
- MicroRNAs as Targets for Cancer Diagnosis: Interests and Limitations.Advanced pharmaceutical bulletin · 2023Review
- Impact of the systematic introduction of tomosynthesis on breast biopsies: 10 years of results.La Radiologia medica · 2023Article
- Lessons Learned from the Randomized Controlled TOmosynthesis plus SYnthesized MAmmography (TOSYMA) Trial.Radiology · 2023Article
- Clinical validation of the novel CLIA-CA-62 assay efficacy for early-stage breast cancer detection.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Article
- Virtual clinical trial to compare cancer detection using combinations of 2D mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D imaging.European radiology · 2022Article
- Investigation of electrocatalytic and photocatalytic ability of Cu/Ni/TiOScientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We proposed to compare the accuracy and effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), plus digital or synthetic mammography, with digital mammography alone in women attending population-based breast cancer screenings. We performed a systematic review and included controlled studies comparing DBT with digital mammography for breast cancer screening. Search strategies were applied to the MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and CENTRAL databases. With moderate quality of evidence, in 1,000 screens, DBT plus digital mammography increased the overall and invasive breast cancer rates by 3 and 2 (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.58 and RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.79, respectively). DBT plus synthetic mammography increased both overall and invasive breast cancer rates by 2 (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.54 and RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.55, respectively). DBT did not improve recall, false positive and false negative rates. However due to heterogeneity the quality of evidence was low. For women attending population-based breast cancer screenings, DBT increases rates of overall and invasive breast cancer. There is no evidence with high or moderate quality showing that DBT compared with digital mammography decreases recall rates, as well as false positive and false negative rates.
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.