SynthesisBritish journal of cancer2020
Supplemental breast cancer-screening ultrasonography in women with dense breasts: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in British journal of cancer, 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, 73 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Supplemental Screening as an Adjunct to Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening in People With Dense Breasts: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2023Pooled it
- Statistically Rigorous and Interpretable Radiomics for Benign-Malignant Classification on the BUSI-WHU Breast Ultrasound Dataset.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Does the addition of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography to B-mode ultrasonography improve diagnostic accuracy for breast cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2026Article
- Multimodal Large Language Models for Breast Ultrasound Report Auditing: Workflow-Error Detection, False-Positive Burden, and Limits of Key-Image Interpretation.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Surgical Perspective on the Updated American College of Radiology Supplemental Screening Guidelines for Breast Density.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Portable Freehand 3D Breast Ultrasound Using a Dual-Rotary-Encoder 2DoF Tracking Framework.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Additional ultrasound in women with dense breasts in a breast cancer-screening program based on digital breast tomosynthesis: evidences on cancer detection, false positives and associated costs.Journal of ultrasound · 2026Article
- Enhancing the OncoSim-Breast model using Canadian breast density information.Health reports · 2026Article
- Machine learning enhanced optical spectroscopy for breast cancer diagnosis: A review.Lasers in medical science · 2026Review
- A foundation generative model for breast ultrasound image analysis.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Based Exosome Analysis for Improving Diagnostic Performance of Breast Lesions on Ultrasound: Protocol of a Prospective, Multicenter Cohort Study.Journal of breast cancer · 2026Article
- Article
- Organ-on-a-Chip Technology and Global Multi-Omics: Current Applications and Future Directions.MedComm · 2026Review
- Comparative Diagnostic Efficacy of Four Breast Imaging Modalities in Dense Breasts: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Variational mode directed deep learning framework for breast lesion classification using ultrasound imaging.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of diagnostic performance of automatic breast ultrasound and spectral mammography as complementary methods to mammography examination.Polish journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic performance with and without artificial intelligence assistance in real-world screening mammography.European journal of radiology open · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMammography is not effective in detecting breast cancer in dense breasts.
methodsA search in Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE and Google Scholar databases was conducted from January 1, 1980 to April 10, 2019 to identify women with dense breasts screened by mammography (M) and/or ultrasound (US). Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model.
resultsA total of 21 studies were included. The pooled sensitivity values of M alone and M + US in patients were 74% and 96%, while specificity of the two methods were 93% and 87%, respectively. Screening sensitivity was significantly higher in M + US than M alone (risk ratio: M alone vs. M + US = 0.699, P < 0.001), but the slight difference in specificity was statistically significant (risk ratio = 1.060, P = 0.001). Pooled diagnostic performance of follow-up US after initial negative mammography demonstrated a high pooled sensitivity (96%) and specificity (88%). The findings were supported by subgroup analysis stratified by study country, US method and timing of US.
conclusionsBreast cancer screening by supplemental US among women with dense breasts shows added detection sensitivity compared with M alone. However, US slightly decreased the diagnostic specificity for breast cancer. The cost-effectiveness of supplemental US in detecting malignancy in dense breasts should be considered additionally.
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.