↓ Skip to main content

Benefit of adding digital breast tomosynthesis to digital mammography for breast cancer screening focused on cancer characteristics: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Benefit of adding digital breast tomosynthesis to digital mammography for breast cancer screening focused on cancer characteristics: a meta-analysis
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10549-017-4298-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Seong Jong Yun, Chang-Woo Ryu, Sun Jung Rhee, Jung Kyu Ryu, Ji Young Oh

Abstract

We evaluated the benefit of adding digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) compared to FFDM alone for breast cancer detection, focusing on cancer characteristics. We searched electronic databases and relevant references for published studies comparing DBT plus FFDM to FFDM alone for breast cancer screening. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) for various pathologic findings were determined using random effects models. Eleven eligible studies were included. Pooled RRs showed a greater cancer detection for DBT plus FFDM than for FFDM alone for invasive cancer (1.327; 95% CI, 1.168-1.508), stage T1 (1.388; 95% CI, 1.137-1.695), nodal-negative (1.451; 95% CI, 1.209-1.742), all histologic grades (grade I, 1.812; grade II/III, 1.403), and histologic types of invasive cancer (ductal, 1.437; lobular, 1.901). However, adding DBT did not increase for detection of carcinoma in situ (1.198; 95% CI, 0.942-1.524), stage ≥T2 (1.391; 95% CI, 0.895-2.163), or nodal-positive cancer (1.336; 95% CI, 0.921-1.938). Heterogeneity among studies was not significant in any subset analysis. Adding DBT to FFDM enabled detection of early invasive breast cancer that might have been missed with FFDM alone. Knowing which cancer characteristic DBT detects may allow it to play a complementary role in predicting long-term patient outcomes and facilitate treatment planning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Other 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 19 24%
Unknown 20 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Physics and Astronomy 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 24 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 August 2022.
All research outputs
#7,030,627
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#1,538
of 4,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,486
of 313,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#31
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,681 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,801 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.