ArticleEClinicalMedicine2021
Interval breast cancer rates for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening: An
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interval breast cancer rates for tomosynthesis vs mammography population screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.European radiology · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Two-year follow-up of participants in the BreastScreen Victoria pilot trial of tomosynthesis versus mammography: breast density-stratified screening outcomes.The British journal of radiology · 2023Trial
- Radiological review of interval breast cancers following screening with DBT + DM or DM: results from MAITA project randomized trials.La Radiologia medica · 2026Article
- Screening mammography: Any room for reading improvement without AI?European radiology · 2026Article
- Personalized survival prediction in young Asian American breast cancer.Gland surgery · 2026Article
- Foundation models for radiology-the position of the AI for Health Imaging (AI4HI) network.Insights into imaging · 2025Review
- Budget impact analysis of introducing digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening in Italy.La Radiologia medica · 2024Article
- Interval cancer in the Córdoba Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (CBTST): comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis plus digital mammography to digital mammography alone.European radiology · 2024Article
- The paradox of MRI for breast cancer screening: high-risk and dense breasts-available evidence and current practice.Insights into imaging · 2024Review
- Artificial-intelligence-enhanced synthetic thick slabs versus standard slices in digital breast tomosynthesis.The British journal of radiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) improves breast cancer (BC) detection compared to mammography, however, it is unknown whether this reduces
methodsUsing
findingsFour prospective DBT studies, from European population-based programs, contributed IPD for 66,451 DBT-screened participants: age-adjusted pooled ICR was 13.17/10,000 (95%CI: 8.25-21.02). Pooled ICR was higher in the high-density (21.08/10,000; 95%CI: 6.71-66.27) than the low-density (8.63/10,000; 95%CI: 5.25-14.192) groups (
interpretationAlthough heterogeneity in ICR estimates and few datasets limit recommendations, there was no difference between DBT and mammography in pooled ICR despite DBT increasing cancer detection.
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.