ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2025
Diagnostic Management Pathways for Workup of Abnormal Screening With Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Use, Facility Mammography Volume, and Timely Follow-Up After Abnormal Screening Mammograms in Appalachia, United States.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeOur objective was to assess the transition from digital mammography (DM) to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening, the authors compared diagnostic workup type and frequency, workup pathways, and time to resolution of abnormal screening between DBT and DM.
methodsThis cohort study included screening examinations with an abnormal results from 2011 to 2020 at 107 facilities across six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries. Diagnostic workup included diagnostic DM, diagnostic DBT, ultrasound, MRI, and biopsy within 90 days of the abnormal result on screening mammography. Workup modalities and number of workup procedures were compared using differences in proportion and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Time to diagnostic resolution between DBT and DM was compared using a log-rank test.
resultsAmong 77,123 DBT and 197,589 abnormal DM screening examinations with abnormal results, the number of imaging modalities in the diagnostic pathway was similar. The first workup procedure was more often ultrasound after abnormal results on DBT compared with DM (21.1% versus 4.7%). Biopsy rates were higher for DBT versus DM (16.2% versus 14.0%; difference in proportions = 2.27; 95% CI, 1.97-2.58) with biopsies after DM versus DBT more likely surgical versus fine-needle aspiration or core (5.8% versus 3.2%; difference in proportions = 2.6; 95% CI, 2.19-3.01), resulting in a rate of excision biopsy per 1,000 screens with abnormal findings of 5.1 for DBT and 8.0 for DM. Time to diagnostic resolution was similar (median, 10 days).
conclusionsThis study revealed differences in the type of diagnostic workup pathways after abnormal results on screening DBT versus DM. Although the biopsy rate was higher after abnormal results on DBT, the biopsy type may be more invasive (surgical excision) after abnormal results on DM.
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.