ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2022
Are All Views with and without Displacement Maneuver Necessary in Augmentation Mammography? Putting Numbers Into Perspective.
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implant-displacement views alone for breast cancer screening in women with implants: a multicenter retrospective study.European radiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Screening the Implant-Augmented Breast with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Is Tomosynthesis Necessary for Non-implant-Displaced Views?Journal of breast imaging · 2024Article
- Medical Imaging of Inflammations and Infections of Breast Implants.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAugmentation implants pose a challenge for radiologists. Displacing the implant allows slightly more breast tissue to be visualized than the standard compression views. The objective of this study was to verify the agreement between craniocaudal (CC) views and CC with implant displacement (CC-ID), mediolateral oblique (MLO) and MLO-ID and the inter- and intraobserver agreement of mammographic images for finding abnormal images.
methodsThe main outcomes [BI-RADS® normal=1,2; abnormal=3,4,5)] were analysed by 3 readers (reader1; reader 2, 1st round, reader 2, 2nd round) in 360 women with breast implants. Comparison between CC/CC-ID and MLO/MLO-ID, and degree of agreement for mammographic images between researchers were made using Kappa index. Proportions were calculated using a 95% confidence interval (95%CI).
resultsA total of 87 abnormal findings were identified by reader 2, 2nd round. Abnormal findings were observed in CC-ID=18.8% (68 out of 360; 95%CI=15.1%-23.2%) compared to CC=10.8% (39 out of 360; 95%CI=8%-14.4%, k=0.49); in MLO=10.5% (38 out of 360; 95%CI=7.7%-14.1%) compared to MLO-ID=15.8% (57 out of 360; 95%CI=12.4%-19.9%, k=0.55). The CC-ID was the view that singly identified more abnormal findings (20 out of 87; 23%; 95%CI=15.4% to 32.8%) and the CC was the view that least detected abnormal findings (1 out 87; 95%CI=0.2% to 6.2%). The inter- and intraobserver agreement between readers views was 0.67 and 0.74 respectively.
conclusionsIn women with breast augmentation implants, all views are necessary to identify breast tissue abnormalities. In our sample, the inter- and intraobserver agreement were "substantial".
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.