ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
An initial experience of using dual energy contrast enhanced mammography at a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contrast-enhanced mammography in low- and middle-income countries: opportunities and challenges.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Contrast enhanced mammography (CEM), a relatively new and promising modality, combines mammography (MMG) with an iodinated contrast material to illuminate neovascularity within the breast; analogous to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). CEM improves the overall sensitivity of MMG; reduces the need for unnecessary biopsies and follow-up imaging and can be considered a reasonable substitute for MRI. In Pakistan, CEM was recently introduced and to assess its usability a study was conducted on five patients before making it available as a regular investigation. Case presentations: Four out of the five patients had a clinical suspicion of malignancy with two patients having heterogeneously dense breasts and two with dense breasts. All enhancing lesions were concordant on biopsy and had similar corresponding findings on additional imaging such as ultrasound (US) and/or MRI. CEM in all four cases of biopsy proven malignancy facilitated surgical planning. The fifth patient underwent CEM for screening and was found to have no enhancing lesion. Conclusion: In low-middle-income countries (LMICs) where breast MRI is not readily available and expensive for the populace, CEM can be a reliable alternative. The initial experience with CEM at our hospital shows better visualization of malignant lesions in dense and heterogeneously dense breasts with an easy-to-perform technique and a shorter imaging time while facilitating surgical decision-making in terms of breast conservation.
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.