ArticleScientific reports2023
Appropriate screening mammography method for patients with breast implants.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimally Invasive, Tissue-Preserving Breast Augmentation: Insights From a Large Case Series, Technique and Surgical Pearls.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2026Article
- Implant-displacement views alone for breast cancer screening in women with implants: a multicenter retrospective study.European radiology · 2026Article
- Reducing false positives in breast cancer screening with computer-aided detection.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2026Article
- Presentation and Management of Silicone Lymphadenopathy: A Single Institutional Retrospective Cohort Study.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
- Breast Implants: Low Rate of Annual Check-Ups Results in Delayed Presentation of Ruptured Implants.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Two-Dimensional Mammography Imaging Techniques for Screening Women with Silicone Breast Implants: A Pilot Phantom Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we aimed to evaluate the benefits and losses of mammography with and without implant displacement (ID) and propose an appropriate imaging protocol for the screening of breasts with implants. We evaluated mammograms of 162 breasts in 96 patients including 71 breasts with biopsy-proven cancers. Mammography of each breast included standard MLO and ID MLO images. We reviewed the mammograms using clinical image quality criteria, which consist of parameters that evaluate the proper positioning of the breast and the image resolution. Standard MLO images showed significantly higher scores for proper positioning but showed significantly lower scores for image resolution than the ID MLO images. Moreover, standard MLO images showed significantly higher kVp, mAs, and compressed breast thickness than the ID MLO images. The organ dose was also higher in the standard MLO images than in the ID MLO images, but the difference was not statistically significant. In mammography with proven cancer, ID MLO images showed significantly higher degree of cancer visibility than standard MLO images. For screening mammography in patients with breast implants, ID MLO view alone is sufficient for MLO projection with reducing the patient's radiation dose without compromising the breast cancer detection capability, especially in dense breasts with subpectoral implants.
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.