SynthesisInternational journal of cancer2025
Diagnostic performance of tomosynthesis plus synthetic mammography versus full-field digital mammography with or without tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Italian guidelines for the use of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening programmes: GRADE-ADOLOPMENT of the European guidelines.La Radiologia medica · 2026Guideline
- Diagnostic performance of tomosynthesis plus synthetic mammography versus full-field digital mammography with or without tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating artificial intelligence-generated synthesized mammography as a standalone alternative to digital mammography with or without tomosynthesis.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Missed and true interval cancers on digital breast tomosynthesis screening mammograms: radiologists' assessment and artificial intelligence markings.Acta radiologica open · 2026Article
- Letter to the Editor: Radiation exposure and screening yield by digital breast tomosynthesis compared to mammography-results of the TOSYMA trial, breast density related.European radiology · 2026Article
- AGO Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Early Breast Cancer: Update 2025.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Clinical diagnostic accuracy and non-inferiority of digital breast tomosynthesis by synthetic 2D mammography compared with full-field digital mammography for the diagnosis of breast cancer: a single-center retrospective study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 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
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with full-field digital mammography (FFDM) exposes women to a higher radiation dose. A synthetic 2D mammogram (S2D) is a two-dimensional image constructed from DBT. We aim to evaluate the S2D performance when used alone or combined with DBT compared to FFDM alone or with DBT. Studies were included if they recruited screening participants and reported on S2D performance. Studies were excluded if they included symptomatic patients, imaging was for diagnostic purposes, or if participants had a breast cancer history. Meta-analyses for cancer detection rates (CDR) and Specificities were conducted where available. Differences in the performance of imaging modalities were calculated within individual studies, and these were pooled by meta-analysis. Out of 3241 records identified, 17 studies were included in the review and 13 in the meta-analysis. The estimated combined difference in CDRs per thousand among individual studies that reported on DBT plus S2D vs. FFDM and those reporting on DBT plus S2D versus DBT plus FFDM was 2.03 (95% CI 0.81-3.25) and - 0.15 (95% CI -1.17 to 0.86), respectively. The estimated difference in percent specificities was 1.13 (95% CI -0.06 to 2.31) in studies comparing DBT plus S2D and FFDM. In studies comparing DBT plus S2D and DBT plus FFDM, the estimated difference in specificities was 1.08 (95% CI 0.59-1.56). DBT plus S2D showed comparable accuracy to FFDM plus DPT and improved cancer detection to FFDM alone. Integrating S2D with DBT in breast cancer screening is safe and preserves performance.
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.