ArticleScientific reports2024
An investigation of tomosynthesis on the diagnostic efficacy of spot compression mammography.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To explore the diagnostic efficacy of tomosynthesis spot compression (TSC) compared with conventional spot compression (CSC) for ambiguous findings on full-field digital mammography (FFDM). In this retrospective study, 122 patients (including 108 patients with dense breasts) with ambiguous FFDM findings were imaged with both CSC and TSC. Two radiologists independently reviewed the images and evaluated lesions using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Pathology or at least a 1-year follow-up imaging was used as the reference standard. Diagnostic efficacies of CSC and TSC were compared, including area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). The mean glandular dose was recorded and compared for TSC and CSC. Of the 122 patients, 63 had benign lesions and 59 had malignant lesions. For Reader 1, the following diagnostic efficacies of TSC were significantly higher than those of CSC: AUC (0.988 vs. 0.906, P = 0.001), accuracy (93.4% vs. 77.8%, P = 0.001), specificity (87.3% vs. 63.5%, P = 0.002), PPV (88.1% vs. 70.5%, P = 0.010), and NPV (100% vs. 90.9%, P = 0.029). For Reader 2, TSC showed higher AUC (0.949 vs. 0.909, P = 0.011) and accuracy (83.6% vs. 71.3%, P = 0.022) than CSC. The mean glandular dose of TSC was higher than that of CSC (1.85 ± 0.53 vs. 1.47 ± 0.58 mGy, P < 0.001) but remained within the safety limit. TSC provides better diagnostic efficacy with a slightly higher but tolerable radiation dose than CSC. Therefore, TSC may be a candidate modality for patients with ambiguous findings on FFDM.
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.