ArticleBritish journal of cancer2025
Women's perspectives of molecular breast imaging: a qualitative study.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Women's perspectives of molecular breast imaging: a qualitative study.British journal of cancer · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMammography has poor sensitivity in dense breast tissue. Retrospective studies suggest that Molecular Breast Imaging (MBI), has superior diagnostic accuracy to mammography in women with very dense breast tissue. Women's perspectives of MBI are unknown, but are crucial to understanding the feasibility of, and routes to, adoption into practice.
methodSemi-structured interviews with screened and unscreened women explored acceptability of MBI. Data were analysed thematically.
resultsFour themes were generated from nineteen interviews: (1) presumed negative aspects of MBI are acceptable (2) convenience of access, (3) comfort in familiarity and (4) need for shared decisions relating to risk. Presumed negative aspects of MBI, such as radiation dose and forty-minute scan time, were acceptable provided there are benefits. Some participants were concerned about equitable access, such as parking. Participants expressed comfort in existing and familiar screening processes. Participants acknowledged that informing women of their breast density may result in increased anxiety, but it was still felt to be important to ensure women are fully informed of the risks and harms of screening.
conclusionsWomen consider MBI to be an acceptable breast imaging modality. High-quality information enabling informed decision-making is essential.
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.