ArticleBMC cancer2025
Optimising breast cancer screening in national mammography screening centres: challenges and insights on implementing additional ultrasound for women with dense breast tissue - a qualitative study.
Article in BMC cancer, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch indicates that incorporating supplemental breast ultrasound in addition to mammography can enhance the sensitivity of public mammography screening, particularly for women with dense breast tissue. However, little information exists regarding the feasibility of integrating ultrasound into public mammography screening. Moreover, limited data exist on the awareness, perceptions, and experiences of both screening clients and healthcare providers regarding dense breast tissue, its impact on screening effectiveness, and the acceptability and implications of incorporating additional ultrasound.
methodsIn a prospective, controlled mixed-methods study, 31 semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with both screening professionals and clients identified as having dense breast tissue. Six mammography screening centres in Germany participated in the qualitative part of the DIMASOS2 study (Density-Indicated Mammographic-Sonographic Breast Cancer Screening), where additional ultrasound was offered to women aged 50 to 69 years identified as having dense breast tissue. The interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis.
resultsClients expressed appreciation for the additional ultrasound examination; half of them were already aware of their dense breast tissue but lacked knowledge about its implications for diagnostic accuracy. Healthcare professionals felt that diagnostic sensitivity of mammography screening needed to be improved, but also faced challenges such as insufficient evidence for adjunct measures, concerns about overdiagnosis and false positives, and substantial organisational barriers to implementing ultrasound examinations.
conclusionsThis study highlights a gap in open discussions about breast density and its impact on screening accuracy. The absence of evidence-based information hampers informed decision making for both healthcare providers and clients. Moreover, substantial organisational constraints hinder the incorporation of breast ultrasound into public screening programme, leading to a complex and unsatisfactory situation for healthcare professionals and clients.
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.