↓ Skip to main content

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in recalls from the Dutch breast cancer screening program: validation of results in a large multireader, multicase study

Overview of attention for article published in European Radiology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
99 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
Title
Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in recalls from the Dutch breast cancer screening program: validation of results in a large multireader, multicase study
Published in
European Radiology, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00330-016-4336-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

U. C. Lalji, I. P. L. Houben, R. Prevos, S. Gommers, M. van Goethem, S. Vanwetswinkel, R. Pijnappel, R. Steeman, C. Frotscher, W. Mok, P. Nelemans, M. L. Smidt, R. G. Beets-Tan, J. E. Wildberger, M. B. I. Lobbes

Abstract

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is a promising problem-solving tool in women referred from a breast cancer screening program. We aimed to study the validity of preliminary results of CESM using a larger panel of radiologists with different levels of CESM experience. All women referred from the Dutch breast cancer screening program were eligible for CESM. 199 consecutive cases were viewed by ten radiologists. Four had extensive CESM experience, three had no CESM experience but were experienced breast radiologists, and three were residents. All readers provided a BI-RADS score for the low-energy CESM images first, after which the score could be adjusted when viewing the entire CESM exam. BI-RADS 1-3 were considered benign and BI-RADS 4-5 malignant. With this cutoff, we calculated sensitivity, specificity and area under the ROC curve. CESM increased diagnostic accuracy in all readers. The performance for all readers using CESM was: sensitivity 96.9 % (+3.9 %), specificity 69.7 % (+33.8 %) and area under the ROC curve 0.833 (+0.188). CESM is superior to conventional mammography, with excellent problem-solving capabilities in women referred from the breast cancer screening program. Previous results were confirmed even in a larger panel of readers with varying CESM experience. • CESM is consistently superior to conventional mammography • CESM increases diagnostic accuracy regardless of a reader's experience • CESM is an excellent problem-solving tool in recalls from screening programs.

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 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Other 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 38 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 8%
Physics and Astronomy 7 6%
Engineering 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 41 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 30 August 2022.
All research outputs
#5,044,385
of 24,213,825 outputs
Outputs from European Radiology
#646
of 4,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,737
of 303,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Radiology
#6
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,213,825 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,508 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 303,882 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.