ArticleBMC medical imaging2023
Clinical performance of digital breast tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy: a single-institution experience in Japan.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison study between stereotactic versus digital breast tomosynthesis-guided core needle biopsy.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Tomosynthesis-Guided Biopsy: A Troubleshooting Guide.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Early detection and analysis of accurate breast cancer for improved diagnosis using deep supervised learning for enhanced patient outcomes.PeerJ. Computer science · 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
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis guided vacuum-assisted biopsy (DBT-VAB) for microcalcifications in the breast.
methodsRetrospective review of 131 mammography-guided VABs at our institution were performed. All of the targets were calcification lesion suspicious for cancer. 45 consecutive stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsies (ST-VABs) and 86 consecutive DBT-VABs were compared. Written informed consent was obtained. Tissue sampling methods and materials were the same with both systems. Student's t-test was used to compare procedure time and the Fisher's exact test was used to compare success rate, complications, and histopathologic findings for the 2 methods.
resultsThe tissue sampling success rate was 95.6% for ST-VAB (43/45) and 97.7% (84/86) for DBT-VAB. Time for positioning (10.6 ± 6.4 vs. 6.7 ± 5.3 min), time for biopsy (33.4 ± 13.1 vs. 22.5 ± 13.1 min), and overall procedure time (66.6 ± 16.6 min vs. 54.5 ± 13.0 min) were substantially shorter with DBT-VAB (P < 0.0001). There were no differences in the distribution of pathological findings between the 2 groups.
conclusionDepth information and stable visibility of the target provided by DBT images led to quick decisions about target coordinates and improved the clinical performance of microcalcification biopsies.
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.