↓ Skip to main content

Mammography: an update of the EUSOBI recommendations on information for women

Overview of attention for article published in Insights into Imaging, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
234 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Mammography: an update of the EUSOBI recommendations on information for women
Published in
Insights into Imaging, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s13244-016-0531-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesco Sardanelli, Eva M. Fallenberg, Paola Clauser, Rubina M. Trimboli, Julia Camps-Herrero, Thomas H. Helbich, Gabor Forrai, for the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI), with language review by Europa Donna–The European Breast Cancer Coalition

Abstract

This article summarises the information to be offered to women about mammography. After a delineation of the aim of early diagnosis of breast cancer, the difference between screening mammography and diagnostic mammography is explained. The need to bring images and reports from the previous mammogram (and from other recent breast imaging examinations) is highlighted. Mammography technique and procedure are described with particular attention to discomfort and pain experienced by a small number of women who undergo the test. Information is given on the recall during a screening programme and on the request for further work-up after a diagnostic mammography. The logic of the mammography report and of classification systems such as R1-R5 and BI-RADS is illustrated, and brief but clear information is given about the diagnostic performance of the test, with particular reference to interval cancers, i.e., those cancers that are missed at screening mammography. 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 with a reliable estimation of its extent. Information about new mammographic technologies (tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography) is also given. Finally, frequently asked questions are answered. • Direct digital mammography should be preferred to film-screen or phosphor plates. • Screening (in asymptomatic women) should be distinguished from diagnosis (in symptomatic women). • A breast symptom has to be considered even after a negative mammogram. • Digital breast tomosynthesis increases cancer detection and decreases the recall rate. • Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography can help in cancer detection and lesion characterisation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users 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 234 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Egypt 1 <1%
Unknown 233 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 27 12%
Researcher 19 8%
Other 18 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 7%
Student > Master 17 7%
Other 39 17%
Unknown 97 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 8%
Engineering 7 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Computer Science 5 2%
Other 27 12%
Unknown 103 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 06 October 2023.
All research outputs
#2,659,942
of 24,571,708 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#139
of 1,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,097
of 275,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#4
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,571,708 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,114 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 275,309 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.