ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2023
Our experience using synthesized mammography vs full field digital mammography in population-based screening.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Synthesized Mammogram (SM) from Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) images is introduced to replace the routine Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) to reduce radiation dose. Purpose: to compare the conspicuity of cancer related findings between SM and FFDM and combination of these methods with DBT. Methods: The study was conducted in a tertiary breast imaging center, where 200 women referred for screening were enrolled in the study sequentially. Patients underwent FFDM and DBT simultaneously and a two-year follow-up was done. Data was evaluated for Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) score, breast density, mass lesions, calcification, and focal asymmetry by two expert breast radiologists. Comparison between different methods was made by Cohen Kappa test. Results: 22 patients with likely malignant findings went under biopsy. Taking histopathologic findings and two-year follow up as reference, the overall sensitivity and specificity for FFDM+DBT (86.1 and 88.9 respectively) and SM+DBT (86.1 and 88.2) didn't show a meaningful difference. Comparing SM and FFDM, calcification in 20 subjects were overlooked on SM, but later detected when combined with DBT. Considering breast composition and BI-RADS categorization, an excellent agreement existed between the readers. Conclusion: Screening with SM+DBT shows comparable results with FFDM+DBT considering BI-RADS categorization of the patients. Although SM showed slightly inferior sensitivity compared to FFDM, after combining DBT with SM no malignant appearing calcification or mass lesion was missed.
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.