ArticleCancers2023
Breast Digital Tomosynthesis versus Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Comparison of Diagnostic Application and Radiation Dose in a Screening Setting.
Article in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ground-Glass Enhancement on Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A CT-Inspired Qualitative Descriptor for Breast Lesion Characterization.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Preliminary Evaluation of Radiomics in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography for Prognostic Prediction of Breast Cancer.Cancers · 2025Article
- Establishing Diagnostic Reference Levels for Mammography Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, Contrast Enhance, Implants, Spot Compression, Magnification and Stereotactic Biopsy in Dubai Health Sector.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- Does Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Outperform Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Detection and Characterization of Breast Lesions or Vice Versa?Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Literature Review of Clinical Uses for Cancer Diagnosis and Surgical Oncology.Cancers · 2024Review
- The verification of the utility of a commercially available phantom combination for quality control in contrast-enhanced mammography.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2024Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Markov Modeling Study.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2024Article
- Phantom-based analysis of variations in automatic exposure control across three mammography systems: implications for radiation dose and image quality in mammography, DBT, and CEM.European radiology experimental · 2024Article
- State-of-the-art for contrast-enhanced mammography.The British journal of radiology · 2024Review
- Contrast-enhanced mammography BI-RADS: a case-based approach to radiology reporting.Insights into imaging · 2024Review
- Editorial for the Special Issue "Breast Cancer-Therapeutic Challenges, Research Strategies and Novel Diagnostics".Cancers · 2023Article
- History of Mammography: Analysis of Breast Imaging Diagnostic Achievements over the Last Century.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate the Average Glandular Dose (AGD) and diagnostic performance of CEM versus Digital Mammography (DM) as well as versus DM plus one-view Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT), which were performed in the same patients at short intervals of time. A preventive screening examination in high-risk asymptomatic patients between 2020 and 2022 was performed with two-view Digital Mammography (DM) projections (Cranio Caudal and Medio Lateral) plus one Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) projection (mediolateral oblique, MLO) in a single session examination. For all patients in whom we found a suspicious lesion by using DM + DBT, we performed (within two weeks) a CEM examination. AGD and compression force were compared between the diagnostic methods. All lesions identified by DM + DBT were biopsied; then, we assessed whether lesions found by DBT were also highlighted by DM alone and/or by CEM. We enrolled 49 patients with 49 lesions in the study. The median AGD was lower for DM alone than for CEM (3.41 mGy vs. 4.24 mGy,
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.