Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39141648›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Patients' perceptions of targeted breast ultrasound and digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic setting: A mixed methods study.

Carmen C N Siebers, Linda Appelman, Lejla Kočo, Mette Palm, Linda Rainey, Mireille J M Broeders, Peter T M Appelman, Shirley Go, Marja C J Van Oirsouw, Ritse M Mann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

10 authors.

Carmen C N SiebersDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1810-2446
Linda AppelmanDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Lejla KočoDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1308-6520
Mette PalmDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Linda RaineyRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Mireille J M BroedersDepartment for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8741-8148
Peter T M AppelmanDepartment of Radiology, St. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Shirley GoDepartment of Radiology, Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep, Alkmaar, The Netherlands.
Marja C J Van OirsouwPatient Advocate on Behalf of the Dutch Breast Cancer Society (Borstkanker Vereniging Nederland), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ritse M MannDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough DBT is the standard initial imaging modality for women with focal breast symptoms, the importance of ultrasound has grown rapidly in the past decades. Therefore, the Breast UltraSound Trial (BUST) focused on assessing the diagnostic value of ultrasound and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for the evaluation of breast symptoms by reversing the order of breast imaging; first performing ultrasound followed by DBT. This side-study of the BUST evaluates patients' perceptions of ultrasound and DBT in a reversed setting.

methodsAfter imaging, 1181/1276 BUST participants completed a survey consisting of open and closed questions regarding both exams (mean age 47.2, ±11.74). Additionally, a different subset of BUST participants (n = 29) participated in six focus group interviews 18-24 months after imaging to analyze their imaging experiences in depth.

resultsA total of 55.3% of women reported reluctance to undergoing DBT, primarily due of pain, while the vast majority also find bilateral DBT reassuring (87.3%). Thematic analysis identified themes related to 1) imaging reluctance (pain/burden, result, and breast harm) and 2) ultrasound and DBT perceptions. Regarding the latter, the theme comfort underscores DBT as burdensome and painful, while ultrasound is largely perceived as non-burdensome. Ultrasound is also particularly valued for its interactive nature, as highlighted in the theme interaction. Perceived effectiveness reflects women's interest in bilateral breast evaluation with DBT and the visibility of lesions, while they express more uncertainty about the reliability of ultrasound. Emotional impact portrays DBT as reassuring for many women, whereas opinions on the reassurance provided by ultrasound are more diverse. Additional themes include costs, protocols and privacy.

conclusionsUltrasound is highly tolerated, and particularly valued is the interaction with the radiologist. Nearly half of women express reluctance towards DBT; nevertheless, a large portion report feeling more confident after undergoing bilateral DBT, reassuring them of the absence of abnormalities. Understanding patients' perceptions of breast imaging examinations is of great value when optimizing diagnostic pathways.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMammographyUltrasonography, MammaryAdultBreastFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMiddle AgedPerceptionSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID39141648
PMCPMC11324127

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.