SynthesisBMJ open2024
Meta-analysis and systematic review of the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for the detection of breast cancer.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- ROI-Based Quantitative Analysis in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Feasibility Study for Reproducible Enhancement Assessment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evolving Concepts and Contemporary Management of Early-Stage Breast Cancer: An Evidence-Based Approach to Grey Zones from a Comprehensive Breast Unit Part 1: Locoregional Therapy, Pathology, Radiology.European journal of breast health · 2026Article
- Explainable Deep Learning for Breast Lesion Classification in Digital and Contrast-Enhanced Mammography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Unexpected encounters: The surprising link between ovarian cancer and axillary lymphadenopathy.Radiology case reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective is to evaluate the diagnostic effectiveness of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in the diagnosis of breast cancer.
designDATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane libraries up to 18 June 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included trials studies, compared the results of different researchers on CESM in the diagnosis of breast cancer, and calculated the diagnostic value of CESM for breast cancer. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) evaluated the methodological quality of all the included studies. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses specification. In addition to sensitivity and specificity, other important parameters were explored in an analysis of CESM accuracy for breast cancer diagnosis. For overall accuracy estimation, summary receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated. STATA V.14.0 was used for all analyses.
resultsThis meta-analysis included a total of 12 studies. According to the summary estimates for CESM in the diagnosis of breast cancer, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.97 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.98) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.85), respectively. Positive likelihood ratio was 4.03 (95% CI 2.65 to 6.11), negative likelihood ratio was 0.05 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.09) and the diagnostic odds ratio was 89.49 (95% CI 45.78 to 174.92). Moreover, there was a 0.95 area under the curve.
conclusionsThe CESM has high sensitivity and good specificity when it comes to evaluating breast cancer, particularly in women with dense breasts. Thus, provide more information for clinical diagnosis and treatment.
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.