Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32572492›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the National Cancer Institute2021

Impact of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Film-Screen Mammography in Population Screening: A Meta-Analysis.

Rachel Farber, Nehmat Houssami, Sally Wortley, Gemma Jacklyn, Michael L Marinovich, Kevin McGeechan, Alexandra Barratt, Katy Bell

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Overdiagnosis in the Age of Digital Cancer Screening.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rachel FarberSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Nehmat HoussamiSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Sally WortleySydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Gemma JacklynSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Michael L MarinovichSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Kevin McGeechanSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Alexandra BarrattSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Katy BellSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast screening programs replaced film mammography with digital mammography, and the effects of this practice shift in population screening on health outcomes can be measured through examination of cancer detection and interval cancer rates.

methodsA systematic review and random effects meta-analysis were undertaken. Seven databases were searched for publications that compared film with digital mammography within the same population of asymptomatic women and reported cancer detection and/or interval cancer rates.

resultsThe analysis included 24 studies with 16 583 743 screening examinations (10 968 843 film and 5 614 900 digital). The pooled difference in the cancer detection rate showed an increase of 0.51 per 1000 screens (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.19 to 0.83), greater relative increase for ductal carcinoma in situ (25.2%, 95% CI = 17.4% to 33.5%) than invasive (4%, 95% CI = -3% to 13%), and a recall rate increase of 6.95 (95% CI = 3.47 to 10.42) per 1000 screens after the transition from film to digital mammography. Seven studies (80.8% of screens) reported interval cancers: the pooled difference showed no change in the interval cancer rate with -0.02 per 1000 screens (95% CI = -0.06 to 0.03). Restricting analysis to studies at low risk of bias resulted in findings consistent with the overall pooled results for all outcomes.

conclusionsThe increase in cancer detection following the practice shift to digital mammography did not translate into a reduction in the interval cancer rate. Recall rates were increased. These results suggest the transition from film to digital mammography did not result in health benefits for screened women. This analysis reinforces the need to carefully evaluate effects of future changes in technology, such as tomosynthesis, to ensure new technology leads to improved health outcomes and beyond technical gains.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingFemaleHumansMammographyTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID32572492
PMCPMC7781455
OpenAlexW3037343826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.