Mammographic Screening in Routine Practice: Multisite Study of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography Screenings
Radiology, ISSN: 1527-1315, Vol: 307, Issue: 3, Page: e221571
2023
- 20Citations
- 5Usage
- 38Captures
- 230Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations20
- Citation Indexes20
- 20
- CrossRef2
- Usage5
- Abstract Views5
- Captures38
- Readers38
- 38
- Mentions230
- News Mentions229
- 229
- Blog Mentions1
- 1
Most Recent Blog
Reclaiming registries for integrated evidence generation throughout the product life cycle
As integrated evidence generation takes center stage for driving evidence-based decision making across the product life cycle, automated registries just might be the linchpin that pulls it all together.
Most Recent News
New Findings on Breast Cancer Screening from Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania Summarized (Mammographic Screening In Routine Practice: Multisite Study of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography Screenings)
2024 JUL 29 (NewsRx) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at NewsRx Women's Health Daily -- Current study results on Diagnostics and Screening -
Article Description
Background: The use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is increasing over digital mammography (DM) following studies demonstrating lower recall rates (RRs) and higher cancer detection rates (CDRs). However, inconsistent interpretation of evidence on the risks and benefits of mammography has resulted in varying screening mammography recommendations. Purpose: To evaluate screening outcomes among women in the United States who underwent routine DM or DBT mammographic screening. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included women aged 40-79 years who underwent DM or DBT screening mammograms between January 2014 and December 2020. Outcomes of RR, CDR, positive predictive value of recall (PPV1), biopsy rate, and positive predictive value of biopsy (PPV3) were compared between DM and DBT with use of adjusted multivariable logistic regression models. Results: A total of 2 528 063 screening mammograms from 1 100 447 women (mean age, 57 years ± 10 [SD]) were included. In crude analyses, DBT (1 693 727 screening mammograms vs 834 336 DM screening mammograms) demonstrated lower RR (10.3% [95% CI: 10.3, 10.4] for DM vs 8.9% [95% CI: 8.9, 9.0] for DBT; P < .001) and higher CDR (4.5 of 1000 screening mammograms [95% CI: 4.3, 4.6] vs 5.3 of 1000 [95% CI: 5.2, 5.5]; P < .001), PPV1 (4.3% [95% CI: 4.2, 4.5] vs 5.9% [95% CI: 5.7, 6.0]; P < .001), and biopsy rates (14.5 of 1000 screening mammograms [95% CI: 14.2, 14.7] vs 17.6 of 1000 [95% CI: 17.4, 17.8]; P < .001). PPV3 was similar between cohorts (30.0% [95% CI: 29.2, 30.9] for DM vs 29.3% [95% CI: 28.7, 29.9] for DBT; P = .16). After adjustment for age, breast density, site, and index year, associations remained stable with respect to statistical significance. Conclusion: Women undergoing digital breast tomosynthesis had improved screening mammography outcomes compared with women who underwent digital mammography.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85153803432&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.221571; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36916891; http://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.221571; https://institutionalrepository.aah.org/allother/472; https://institutionalrepository.aah.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1472&context=allother
Radiological Society of North America (RSNA)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know