Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34877457›Full record

ReviewBJR open2021

Contrast-enhanced mammography: what the radiologist needs to know.

Lidewij M F H Neeter, H P J Frank Raat, Rodrigo Alcantara, Quirien Robbe, Marjolein L Smidt, Joachim E Wildberger, Marc B I Lobbes

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BJR open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05250674 (Clinical Evaluation of CEM-guided Biopsy), which is not on this map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

NCT05250674 completednot on this map

Clinical Evaluation of CEM-guided Biopsy

TypeobservationalSponsorParc de Salut MarRan2019 to 2021Enrolled66ConditionsContrast Enhanced Mammography-guided BiopsyArmsCEM-guided biopsy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Contrast-enhanced mammography improves patient access to functional breast imaging.Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2025
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

H P J Frank RaatDepartment of Medical Imaging, Laurentius Hospital, Roermond, the Netherlands.
Rodrigo AlcantaraDepartment of Radiology, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain.
Quirien RobbeDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Marjolein L Smidt
Joachim E WildbergerDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Marc B I Lobbes
Maastricht University · NLHospital Del Mar · ESLaurentius Ziekenhuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a combination of standard mammography and iodinated contrast material administration. During the last decade, CEM has found its place in breast imaging protocols: after i.v. administration of iodinated contrast material, low-energy and high-energy images are retrieved in one acquisition using a dual-energy technique, and a recombined image is constructed enabling visualisation of areas of contrast uptake. The increased incorporation of CEM into everyday clinical practice is reflected in the installation of dedicated equipment worldwide, the (commercial) availability of systems from different vendors, the number of CEM examinations performed, and the number of scientific articles published on the subject. It follows that ever more radiologists will be confronted with this technique, and thus be required to keep up to date with the latest developments in the field. Most importantly, radiologists must have sufficient knowledge on how to interpret CEM images and be acquainted with common artefacts and pitfalls. This comprehensive review provides a practical overview of CEM technique, including CEM-guided biopsy; reading, interpretation and structured reporting of CEM images, including the accompanying learning curve, CEM artefacts and interpretation pitfalls; indications for CEM; disadvantages of CEM; and future developments.

Identifiers

PMID34877457
PMCPMC8611680
OpenAlexW3198663109

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.