SynthesisClinical and experimental medicine2025
Performance of digital breast tomosynthesis with digital mammography for detecting breast cancer in the diagnostic setting: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical and experimental medicine, 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.
- Radiation dose comparison of photon-counting breast CT and mammography: A phantom study.European journal of radiology open · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To systematically determine the diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in combination with digital mammography (DM) compared with DM alone for breast cancer. We searched multiple English and Chinese databases from January 2010 to October 2023. Eligible diagnostic studies comparing DBT/DM with DM alone for breast cancer in women were included. QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The summary sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were estimated using a bivariate model. 27 studies with 45,694 individuals and 59,493 breast lesions were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of DBT/DM were 87% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84-90%) and 84% (95% CI, 78-88%), respectively. These values were higher than those of DM alone, with pooled sensitivity of 76% (95% CI, 72-79%) and specificity of 80% (95% CI, 73-86%). The pooled DORs for DBT/DM and DM alone were 34.74 (95% CI, 22.18-54.39) and 12.96 (95% CI, 8.80-19.08), respectively. Additionally, adding DBT to DM improved diagnostic performance more significantly in Asians (DORs, 59.47 vs. 16.10) than in Westerners (DORs, 19.48 vs. 10.30). Meta-regression analysis revealed that country, reference standard, and published language were significant factors (P < 0.05) affecting heterogeneity for DBT/DM. This meta-analysis demonstrated that DBT/DM has higher diagnostic accuracy than DM alone for breast cancer. Diagnosing breast cancer with DBT/DM significantly increased sensitivity and slightly increased specificity compared with DM alone. Furthermore, adding DBT to DM increased diagnostic performance more significantly in Asians than in Westerners.
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.