ArticleThe British journal of radiology2022
Radiation doses in the United Kingdom breast screening programmes 2016-2019.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of Machine Learning for Mean Glandular Dose Prediction Utilizing DICOM Mammography Images.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- AAPM/EFOMP TG282 versus dance dosimetry for digital breast tomosynthesis in the assessment pathway of a breast screening program.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Local Diagnostic Reference Levels in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2025Article
- Screening Mammography Diagnostic Reference Level System According to Compressed Breast Thickness: Dubai Health.Journal of imaging · 2024Article
- Radiation doses received in the UK breast screening programmes 2019-2023.The British journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Successes and challenges in extracting information from DICOM image databases for audit and research.The British journal of radiology · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo record the radiation doses involved in UK breast screening and to identify any changes since previous publications related to technical factors and the population screened.
methodsMammographic exposure factors for 68,998 women imaged using 411 X-ray sets spread across the UK were compiled. Local output and half value layer measurements for each X-ray set were used to estimate mean glandular dose (MGD) using the standard UK method.
resultsMean MGDs in digital mammography have increased by 11% since 2010-12 for both medio-lateral oblique (MLO) and cranio-caudal (CC) views. The mean compressed breast thickness (CBT) has increased (4.8% CC, 5.2% MLO) over the same period. The mean MLO CBT value of 62.4 ± 0.1 mm is outside the 50 to 60 mm range used for diagnostic reference levels. The increase in MGD is consistent with the CBT changes. The mean MGD in the 50 to 60 mm CBT range is 1.44 ± 0.03 mGy for MLO views. CBT varies with age and peaks at 51.
conclusionsMean CBT has increased with time, and this has increased mean MGDs for digital mammography. CBT also varies with age. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Updated average MGDs in the UK are provided. There is evidence that breast size is increasing in the UK and that mean CBT is affected by age-related changes in the breast.
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.