ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Prospective Multicenter Evaluation of Patient Satisfaction and Radiologist Image Interpretation Using the Envision™ Mammography Platform.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05199701 (Prospective Case Collection Study for New Mammography Technologies), which is not on this 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.
Prospective Case Collection Study for New Mammography Technologies
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Improving image quality without increasing patient discomfort remains a challenge in mammography. This study evaluated the ability of the Envision™ platform in a prospective, multicenter observational case-collection study (NCT05199701), focusing on patient comfort and radiologist-assessed image quality. Patients and Methods: Across nine US breast-imaging sites, 929 women aged ≥35 years undergoing a clinically indicated screening or diagnostic mammogram, or a mammogram in the context of a recommended biopsy, were enrolled. All subjects received a standard four-view bilateral exam (RCC, RMLO, LCC, LMLO) on the Envision platform. Radiologists rated image quality (positioning, contrast, sharpness, tissue visibility, noise, artifacts, and overall clinical image quality) using a three-category scale ( Results: Most subjects (79%) preferred the investigational mammogram over prior mammograms, and 70% reported greater compression comfort. Discomfort scores were low: 34% reported no discomfort (0/10) and 52.5% reported minimal discomfort (1-2/10). Radiologists rated the majority of images acceptable or excellent, with excellent ratings of 41.9-48.5% for contrast, 41.8-42.0% for sharpness, 50.2-50.5% for tissue visibility, and 33.4-34.5% for artifacts. Repeat-imaging recommendations were infrequent (0-6.6% across views), and overall clinical image quality was acceptable or excellent in 94.1-100% of images. Conclusion: The Envision platform produced consistently high levels of clinically acceptable image quality while maintaining or improving patient comfort compared to prior mammography experiences. These findings support its feasibility for routine clinical use.
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.