ArticlePloS one2024
National diagnostic reference levels for digital diagnostic and screening mammography in Uganda.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionScreening and diagnostic mammography are associated with some risk of radiation-induced breast cancer. This study was conducted to establish the National Diagnostic Reference Levels (NDRLs) for digital diagnostic and screening mammography in Uganda to achieve breast radiation dose optimization.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among female participants recruited by consecutive sampling from three selected hospitals with digital mammography in Uganda. The study variables extracted from the mammography machines were exposure factors, compressed breast thickness (CBT), and Average Glandular Dose (AGD) of two standard mammogram views. The stratified National DRL was derived by calculating the 75th percentile of the AGD across all the samples at various CBT ranges for both screening and diagnostic mammography in craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) views.
resultsWe included 300 participants with mean ages of 50.28±9.32 and 47.45±13.45 years for the screening and diagnostic mammography, respectively. There were statistically significant positive correlations between AGD and exposure factors (mAs, kVp) (all p-values<0.0001). For screening mammography, mAs demonstrated a strong positive correlation (r = 0.8369 in CC, 0.8133 in MLO), whereas kVp showed a positive correlation with relatively lower coefficients (r = 0.3700 in CC, 0.3080 in MLO). For diagnostic mammography, mAs exhibited an even stronger positive correlation (r = 0.8987 in CC, 0.8762 in MLO), and kVp maintained a positive correlation with somewhat lower coefficients (r = 0.4954 in CC, 0.3597 in MLO). In screening mammography, for CBT within the range of (7-39) mm, the NDRLs were (1.5mGy, 1.66mGy) in CC) and MLO views. For CBT in the range of (40-59) mm, the NDRLs were (1.78mGy, 1.87mGy), and for CBT in the range of (60-99) mm, the NDRLs were (2.18mGy, 2.22mGy). For diagnostic mammography, the NDRLs were established as (1.7mGy, 1.91mGy), (2.00mGy, 2.09mGy), and (2.63mGy, 2.81mGy) for CBT ranges of (7-39) mm, (40-59) mm, and (60-99) mm, respectively.
conclusionThe NDRLs for digital screening and diagnostic mammography in Uganda have been proposed for the first time. The NDRL values in mammography should be specific to CBT ranges and mammographic views for both diagnostic and screening mammography.
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.