| Title |
Mammography: EUSOBI recommendations for women’s information
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Insights into Imaging, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13244-011-0127-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Francesco Sardanelli, Thomas H. Helbich, for the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) |
| Abstract |
This paper summarises the basic information to be offered to women who undergo mammography. After a delineation of the general aim of early diagnosis of breast cancer, the main difference between screening mammography and diagnostic mammography is explained. The best time for scheduling mammography in fertile women is defined. The need to bring images and reports from the previous mammogram (and from other recent breast imaging examinations) is highlighted. The technique and procedure of mammography are briefly described with particular attention to discomfort and pain experienced by a fraction of women who undergo the test. Information is given on the recall during a screening program and on the request for further work-up after a diagnostic mammography. The logic of the diagnostic mammography report and of classification systems such as BI-RADS and R1-R5 is illustrated, and brief but clear information is given about the diagnostic performance of the test, with particular reference to interval cancers. Moreover, the breast cancer risk due to radiation exposure from mammography is compared to the reduction in mortality obtained with the test, and the concept of overdiagnosis is presented. Finally, five frequently asked questions are answered. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 39 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 17% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 20% |
| Unknown | 8 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 54% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 9 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 November 2011.
All research outputs
#21,699,788
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#946
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,574
of 144,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 144,125 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.