ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Associating Automated Breast Ultrasound (ABUS) and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) with Full-Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) in Clinical Practice in Cases of Women with Dense Breast Tissue.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) meets artificial intelligence: a new accurate classification tool for BIRADS 3-4 breast lesions.Journal of ultrasound · 2026Article
- Dual-modality CAD for breast cancer screening: dealing with discordant diagnosis between mammography and tomography.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- [Use of imaging methods in the current screening, diagnostics and treatment of breast cancer - Professional guidelines. 5th Breast Cancer Consensus Meeting (2025)].Magyar onkologia · 2025Article
- A nomogram for diagnosis of BI-RADS 4 breast nodules based on three-dimensional volume ultrasound.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the value of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) in the diagnosis of breast cancer compared to FFDM associated with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Methods: This retrospective study included 50 female patients with a denser framework of connective tissue fibers, characteristic of young women who underwent FFDM, DBT, handheld ultrasound (HHUS), and ABUS between January 2017 and October 2018. The sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of FFDM+ABUS were 81.82% (95% CI [48.22-97.72]), 89.74% (95% CI [75.78-97.13]), 69.23% (95% CI [46.05-85.57]), 94.59% (95% CI [83.26-98.40]), and 88% (95% CI [75.69-95.47]), while for FFDM+DBT, the values were as follows: 91.67% (95% CI [61.52-99.79]), 71.79% (95% CI [55.13-85.00]), 50% (95% CI [37.08-62.92]), 96.55% (95% CI [80.93-99.46]), 76.47% (95% CI [62.51-87.21]). We found an almost perfect agreement between the two readers regarding FFDM associated with ABUS, and substantial agreement regarding FFDM+DBT, with a kappa coefficient of 0.896 and 0.8, respectively;
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.