ArticleThe British journal of radiology2024
Radiation doses received in the UK breast screening programmes 2019-2023.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Subcategorisation of Data for AI Models in Healthcare: A Case Study in Mammography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- AAPM/EFOMP TG282 versus dance dosimetry for digital breast tomosynthesis in the assessment pathway of a breast screening program.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Predicting the quality of digital mammography from the perspective of detectability of microcalcifications: A Radiomics approach.Medical physics · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo report the latest UK mammography dose survey results and to compare radiation doses from digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in UK breast screening.
methodsAnonymized exposure factors were collected for 111 152 screening cases and 5113 assessment cases from 405 x-ray sets across the United Kingdom using an online submission system linked to a national database of mammography quality control data. Output and beam quality measurements from each set were combined with exposure data to estimate mean glandular doses (MGD).
resultsFFDM doses increased by ∼10% compared to the 2016-2019 national survey but compressed breast thicknesses (CBT) remained similar. DBT doses were 34%-40% higher than FFDM overall and 34% higher than FFDM for breasts 50-60 mm thick. We found a possible overestimation of PMMA breast equivalent thicknesses at low CBTs, but the evidence was not conclusive.
conclusionRecent changes to the mix of x-ray models in use in UK breast screening have resulted in higher FFDM breast doses. DBT doses in the NHSBSP are on average higher than FFDM by ∼34%-40%. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first national study to report DBT and FFDM MGDs in UK breast screening.
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.