ArticleRadiology2020
Multicenter Evaluation of Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Combination with Synthetic versus Digital Mammography.
Article in Radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Change in Indications and Outcomes for Stereotactic Biopsy Following Transition from Full Field Digital Mammography + Digital Breast Tomosynthesis to Full Field Synthetic Mammography + Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Optimized signal of calcifications in wide-angle digital breast tomosynthesis: a virtual imaging trial.European radiology · 2024Article
- Article
- The promise of AI in personalized breast cancer screening: are we there yet?Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2024Article
- Supplemental magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography compared with magnetic resonance imaging or mammography by extent of breast density.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2024Article
- Digital breast tomosynthesis in mammographic screening: false negative cancer cases in the To-Be 1 trial.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- Deep learning denoising of digital breast tomosynthesis: Observer performance study of the effect on detection of microcalcifications in breast phantom images.Medical physics · 2023Article
- Impact of Tomosynthesis Acquisition on 3D Segmentations of Breast Outline and Adipose/Dense Tissue with AI: A Simulation-Based Study.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2023Article
- Multiclass Segmentation of Breast Tissue and Suspicious Findings: A Simulation-Based Study for the Development of Self-Steering Tomosynthesis.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Comparison of breast density assessments between synthesized C-View™ & intelligent 2D™ mammography.The British journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Multimodal Imaging of Target Detection Algorithm under Artificial Intelligence in the Diagnosis of Early Breast Cancer.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2022Article
- Application of artificial intelligence-based computer-assisted diagnosis on synthetic mammograms from breast tomosynthesis: comparison with digital mammograms.European radiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BackgroundDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) combined with digital mammography (DM) is increasingly used in the United States instead of DM alone for breast cancer screening. Early screening outcomes incorporating synthetic mammography (SM) with DBT have suggested that SM is an acceptable non-radiation dose alternative to DM.PurposeTo compare multicenter outcomes from breast cancer screening with SM/DBT versus DM/DBT.Materials and MethodsThis was a retrospective study of consecutive screening mammograms obtained at two institutions. Eligible studies consisted of 34 106 DM/DBT examinations between October 3, 2011, and October 31, 2014, and 34 180 SM/DBT examinations between January 7, 2015, and February 2, 2018, at the University of Pennsylvania and 51 148 DM/DBT examinations between January 1, 2012, and May 31, 2016, and 31 929 SM/DBT examinations between June 1, 2016, and March 30, 2018, at the University of Vermont. Demographics of women who attended screening and results from screening were recorded. Recall rate, biopsy rate, false-negative rate, cancer detection rate, positive predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated according to modality and institution. Descriptive statistics, χ
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.