Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41543813›Full record

ArticleInsights into imaging2026

Acceptance, experience, and feedback for supplemental screening in dense breasts among women participating in the BRAID trial.

Iris Allajbeu, Kate R Charnley, Yuyin Yang, Johanna Field-Rayner, Kirsten Morris, Nicholas R Payne, Fleur Kilburn-Toppin, Roido Manavaki, Fiona J Gilbert

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Insights into imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Iris AllajbeuDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK. ia359@cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6419-2422
Kate R CharnleyDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK.
Yuyin YangDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK.
Johanna Field-RaynerDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK.
Kirsten MorrisDepartment of Radiology, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Nicholas R PayneDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK.
Fleur Kilburn-ToppinDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK.
Roido ManavakiDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK.
Fiona J GilbertDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate patient acceptance and feedback regarding supplemental imaging modalities: automated whole-breast ultrasound (ABUS), contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), and abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI) within the BRAID (Breast Screening: Risk Adaptive Imaging for Density) trial. MATERIALS AND

methodsAn adapted Testing Morbidities Index questionnaire was utilised to capture participant experiences and perceptions (January-April 2024) related to AB-MRI, ABUS and CEM. Likert-scale questions assessed discomfort, anxiety, and overall satisfaction for each imaging modality, while thematic analysis was applied to free-text patient feedback. Additionally, reasons for withdrawal were recorded for each modality.

resultsAmong 159 women providing feedback, 57/159 (35.8%) underwent ABUS, 52/159 (32.7%) CEM, and 50/159 (31.5%) AB-MRI. Acceptability of ABUS, CEM and AB-MRI was rated similarly to mammography by 71/159 (64.8%) of these respondents, with 72/159 (45.3%) considering them superior. Mild-to-moderate discomfort due to breast compression was reported for ABUS and CEM, whereas AB-MRI resulted in the least discomfort. Pre-procedural anxiety was observed across all imaging modalities, particularly with contrast-enhanced techniques; however, experiences were generally well-tolerated. Effective communication and pre-test information reduced anxiety levels, with most participants willing to repeat the procedures. 151/984 (15.3%) withdrawals in BRAID were due to adverse patient experiences, with contrast-enhanced techniques accounting for most of these withdrawals (CEM: 69/151, 45.7%; AB-MRI: 66/151, 43.7%; ABUS: 12/151, 7.9%). The main reasons for withdrawal were unhappiness with the allocated imaging arm and discomfort or anxiety during the procedure.

conclusionSupplemental imaging modalities are generally well-accepted by patients with benefit throughout gained by clear communication and preparedness. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Feedback from a subgroup of women participating in the BRAID trial shows that supplemental imaging alongside routine screening is well-accepted. Clear communication and empathetic care further improve acceptance, supporting a shift toward personalised breast cancer screening for women with dense breasts. KEY POINTS: Understanding women's imaging experiences is essential for optimising breast screening practices. Acceptability of supplemental imaging was rated similar to or better than mammography by most participants. Clear, empathetic communication reduced anxiety and improved experience with contrast-enhanced imaging.

Indexed as

BreastMass screeningPatient acceptance of healthcarePatient satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID41543813
PMCPMC12811222

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.