SynthesisPloS one2025
Impact of digital breast tomosynthesis on screening performance and interval cancer rates compared to digital mammography: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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.
- Screening mammography: Any room for reading improvement without AI?European radiology · 2026Article
- Low dose photon-counting digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison with a commercially available tomosynthesis unit in the detection and characterization of breast carcinomas.La Radiologia medica · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) alone, digital mammography (DM) plus DBT, and synthesized mammography (SM) plus DBT, in comparison to DM in breast cancer screening, remains a topic of ongoing debate. The effectiveness of these modalities in reducing interval cancer rates (ICR) is particularly contentious. MATERIALS AND
methodsA database of data was searched for articles published until July 2024. Initially, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of DBT (DBT alone, DM/DBT, and SM/DBT) and DM were estimated. Additionally, the sensitivity of breast cancer screening and ICR for DBT alone, DM/DBT, and SM/DBT compared to DM. The characteristics of interval breast cancer were compared with those screening BC, alongside differences across various screening methods.
resultsEleven studies comparing DBT and DM were included. The sensitivity of DBT was higher than that of DM, with rates of 86% (95%CI: 81, 90) and 80% (95%CI: 76, 84), respectively. The specificities of both modalities were similar, recorded at 96% (95%CI: 95, 98) and 96% (95%CI: 95, 97), respectively. In comparison to DM, the screening sensitivities of DBT, DM/DBT, and SM/DBT were increased by 4.33% (95% CI: 1.52, 7.13), 6.29% (95% CI: 2.55, 10.03), and 5.22% (95% CI: 1.35, 9.10), respectively; however, the difference in the ICR was not statistically significant.
conclusionDBT offers advantages in enhancing the sensitivity of breast cancer screening; however, its impact on ICR remains uncertain. Consequently, further research is necessary to comprehensively evaluate both the effectiveness of screening and the potential risks associated with DBT.
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.