Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39186168›Full record

ArticleInsights into imaging2024

Digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: an ethical perspective.

Simon Rosenqvist, Johan Brännmark, Magnus Dustler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insights into imaging, 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. 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

3 authors.

Simon RosenqvistDepartment of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science, University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden. simon.rosenqvist@gu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8017-0672
Johan BrännmarkDepartment of Philosophy, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Magnus DustlerDiagnostic Radiology, Department of Translational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

Funding

Crafoordska Stiftelsen 20210840
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although digital breast tomosynthesis has higher sensitivity than digital mammography and at least as high specificity, digital mammography remains the most common method for conducting mammographic screening. At the same time, mammography systems are now delivered "DBT-ready" and can be used for either digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis. In this paper, we ask whether it is ethically permissible to use such equipment for digital mammography, given its lower sensitivity. We argue it is not, and that clinics are ethically required to use their DBT-ready equipment to screen with digital breast tomosynthesis whenever this is practically possible. Our argument relies on a comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and a hypothesized improvement in the image quality of digital mammography. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Women may lose out on the benefits of screening with digital breast tomosynthesis when DBT-ready equipment is used to screen with digital mammography; we argue that this practice is ethically problematic. KEY POINTS: Digital breast tomosynthesis finds more cases of breast cancer than digital mammography. Mammography equipment can often be used to screen with both digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography. When they can, clinics are ethically required to use existing equipment to screen with digital breast tomosynthesis instead of digital mammography.

Indexed as

BreastDigital breast tomosynthesisDigital mammographyEthicsHealth policy

Identifiers

PMID39186168
PMCPMC11347518

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.