ArticleEuropean radiology2023
False-positive recalls in the prospective Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.
Article in European radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- ESR Essentials: screening for breast cancer - general recommendations by EUSOBI.European radiology · 2024Guideline
- Cancers not detected in one-view breast tomosynthesis screening-characteristics and reasons for non-detection.European radiology · 2025Article
- Our journey toward implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Project.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the total number of false-positive recalls, including radiographic appearances and false-positive biopsies, in the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST).
methodsThe prospective, population-based MBTST, with 14,848 participating women, was designed to compare one-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to two-view digital mammography (DM) in breast cancer screening. False-positive recall rates, radiographic appearances, and biopsy rates were analyzed. Comparisons were made between DBT, DM, and DBT + DM, both in total and in trial year 1 compared to trial years 2 to 5, with numbers, percentages, and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsThe false-positive recall rate was higher with DBT, 1.6% (95% CI 1.4; 1.8), compared to screening with DM, 0.8% (95% CI 0.7; 1.0). The proportion of the radiographic appearance of stellate distortion was 37.3% (91/244) with DBT, compared to 24.0% (29/121) with DM. The false-positive recall rate with DBT during trial year 1 was 2.6% (95% CI 1.8; 3.5), then stabilized at 1.5% (95% CI 1.3; 1.8) during trial years 2 to 5. The percentage of stellate distortion with DBT was 50% (19/38) trial year 1 compared to 35.0% (72/206) trial years 2 to 5.
conclusionsThe higher false-positive recall rate with DBT compared to DM was mainly due to an increased detection of stellate findings. The proportion of these findings, as well as the DBT false-positive recall rate, was reduced after the first trial year. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Assessment of false-positive recalls gives information on potential benefits and side effects in DBT screening. KEY POINTS: • The false-positive recall rate in a prospective digital breast tomosynthesis screening trial was higher compared to digital mammography, but still low compared to other trials. • The higher false-positive recall rate with digital breast tomosynthesis was mainly due to an increased detection of stellate findings; the proportion of these findings was reduced after the first trial year.
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.