Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36183671›Full record

SynthesisBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2022

Mammographic breast density and the risk of breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

F T H Bodewes, A A van Asselt, M D Dorrius, M J W Greuter, G H de Bock

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 115 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
115citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
29.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

115 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 212 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

55 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

F T H BodewesDepartment of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, HPC: FA40, PO Box 30.001, Groningen, 9700 RB, the Netherlands.
A A van AsseltDepartment of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, HPC: FA40, PO Box 30.001, Groningen, 9700 RB, the Netherlands.
M D DorriusDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
M J W GreuterDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
G H de BockDepartment of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, HPC: FA40, PO Box 30.001, Groningen, 9700 RB, the Netherlands. Electronic address: g.h.de.bock@umcg.nl.
University Medical Center Groningen · NLUniversity of Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMammographic density is a well-defined risk factor for breast cancer and having extremely dense breast tissue is associated with a one-to six-fold increased risk of breast cancer. However, it is questioned whether this increased risk estimate is applicable to current breast density classification methods. Therefore, the aim of this study was to further investigate and clarify the association between mammographic density and breast cancer risk based on current literature.

methodsMedline, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published since 2013, that used BI-RADS lexicon 5th edition and incorporated data on digital mammography. Crude and maximally confounder-adjusted data were pooled in odds ratios (ORs) using random-effects models. Heterogeneity regarding breast cancer risks were investigated using I

resultsNine observational studies were included. Having extremely dense breast tissue (BI-RADS density D) resulted in a 2.11-fold (95% CI 1.84-2.42) increased breast cancer risk compared to having scattered dense breast tissue (BI-RADS density B). Sensitivity analysis showed that when only using data that had adjusted for age and BMI, the breast cancer risk was 1.83-fold (95% CI 1.52-2.21) increased. Both results were statistically significant and homogenous.

conclusionsMammographic breast density BI-RADS D is associated with an approximately two-fold increased risk of breast cancer compared to having BI-RADS density B in general population women. This is a novel and lower risk estimate compared to previously reported and might be explained due to the use of digital mammography and BI-RADS lexicon 5th edition.

Indexed as

Breast DensityBreast NeoplasmsBreastFemaleHumansMammographyRisk FactorsBI-RADSBreast cancerBreast cancer riskBreast densityMammographic density

Identifiers

PMID36183671
PMCPMC9530665
OpenAlexW4297341757

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.