ArticleThe Indian journal of radiology & imaging2026
Comparative Analysis of Radiation Dose in Advanced X-Ray Mammographic Modalities and Evaluation of Potential Influencing Factors.
Article in The Indian journal of radiology & imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a highly accurate, patient-friendly imaging technique. This study aimed to compare the radiation dose of CEM with other mammographic modalities and examine factors influencing radiation exposure to minimize doses. Settings and Design: This retrospective study was conducted at a tertiary care teaching institute. Materials and Methods: We analyzed 184 craniocaudal (CC) and 184 mediolateral oblique (MLO) views from 93 participants who underwent both Combo mode (digital mammography [DM] with digital breast tomosynthesis [DBT]) and CEM. Data on automatic exposure control, average glandular dose (AGD), compressed breast thickness (CBT), compression force (CF), breast density, and the anode/filter used were collected. Statistical Analysis: Scheffe's post hoc analysis compared AGD across different modalities and factors. Results: The mean AGD for CEM (including low-energy [LE] and high-energy [HE] components) was 1.35 times that of DM, 1.3 times that of DBT alone or with synthetic mammography (SM), and 0.66 times that of the Combo mode. AGD in CEM_LE and DBT with SM was comparable to DM across views. Higher AGDs were observed in the MLO view, dense breasts, and when using a tungsten-copper anode/filter. AGD positively correlated with CBT and CF. Conclusion: CEM_LE and DBT with SM, showing similar AGD to DM in this study and comparable diagnostic value in the literature, may reduce the need for additional DM. CC views may be preferred over MLO for delayed imaging of contrast kinetics. With high diagnostic accuracy and acceptable radiation dose, CEM may be preferred over the Combo mode (DM + 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.