ArticleKorean journal of radiology2023
Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Plus Ultrasound Versus Digital Mammography Plus Ultrasound for Screening Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts.
Article in Korean journal of radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Screening Outcomes of Supplemental Automated Breast Ultrasound in Women With Nondense Breasts Undergoing Mammography.Korean journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Breast Cancer Screening in Asian Countries: Epidemiology, Screening Practices, Outcomes, Challenges, and Future Directions.Korean journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Comparative Diagnostic Efficacy of Four Breast Imaging Modalities in Dense Breasts: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Downgrading Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categories in ultrasound using strain elastography and computer-aided diagnosis system: a multicenter, prospective study.The British journal of radiology · 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
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the outcomes of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening combined with ultrasound (US) with those of digital mammography (DM) combined with US in women with dense breasts. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective database search identified consecutive asymptomatic women with dense breasts who underwent breast cancer screening with DBT or DM and whole-breast US simultaneously between June 2016 and July 2019. Women who underwent DBT + US (DBT cohort) and DM + US (DM cohort) were matched using 1:2 ratio according to mammographic density, age, menopausal status, hormone replacement therapy, and a family history of breast cancer. The cancer detection rate (CDR) per 1000 screening examinations, abnormal interpretation rate (AIR), sensitivity, and specificity were compared.
resultsA total of 863 women in the DBT cohort were matched with 1726 women in the DM cohort (median age, 53 years; interquartile range, 40-78 years) and 26 breast cancers (9 in the DBT cohort and 17 in the DM cohort) were identified. The DBT and DM cohorts showed comparable CDR (10.4 [9 of 863; 95% confidence interval {CI}: 4.8-19.7] vs. 9.8 [17 of 1726; 95% CI: 5.7-15.7] per 1000 examinations, respectively;
conclusionDBT screening combined with US showed comparable CDR but lower specificity than DM screening combined with US in women with dense breasts.
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.