Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38954379›Full record

ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2024

The verification of the utility of a commercially available phantom combination for quality control in contrast-enhanced mammography.

J-H Kim, M Kessell, D Taylor, M Hill, J W Burrage

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

J-H KimHealth Technology Management Unit, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, WA, 6000, Australia.
M KessellDepartment of Radiology, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, WA, 6000, Australia.
D TaylorDepartment of Radiology, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, WA, 6000, Australia.
M HillImaging Science Consulting, Issy Les Moulineaux, France.
J W BurrageHealth Technology Management Unit, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, WA, 6000, Australia. John.Burrage@health.wa.gov.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0104-3550

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Contrast-enhanced mammography is being increasingly implemented clinically, providing much improved contrast between tumour and background structures, particularly in dense breasts. Although CEM is similar to conventional mammography it differs via an additional exposure with high energy X-rays (≥ 40 kVp) and subsequent image subtraction. Because of its special operational aspects, the CEM aspect of a CEM unit needs to be uniquely characterised and evaluated. This study aims to verify the utility of a commercially available phantom set (BR3D model 020 and CESM model 022 phantoms (CIRS, Norfolk, Virginia, USA)) in performing key CEM performance tests (linearity of system response with iodine concentration and background subtraction) on two models of CEM units in a clinical setting. The tests were successfully performed, yielding results similar to previously published studies. Further, similarities and differences in the two systems from different vendors were highlighted, knowledge of which may potentially facilitate optimisation of the systems.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaMammographyPhantoms, ImagingQuality ControlFemaleHumansContrast MediaContrast-enhanced mammographyContrast-enhanced spectral mammographyPhantomQuality controlSystem performanceTest object

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.