The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Implementation of Breast Tomosynthesis in a Routine Screening Practice: An Observational Study
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Digital mammography combined with tomosynthesis is gaining clinical acceptance, but data are limited that show its impact in the clinical environment. We assessed the changes in performance measures, if any, after the introduction of tomosynthesis systems into our clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this observational study, we used verified practice- and outcome-related databases to compute and compare recall rates, biopsy rates, cancer detection rates, and positive predictive values for six radiologists who interpreted screening mammography studies without (n = 13,856) and with (n = 9499) the use of tomosynthesis. Two-sided analyses (significance declared at p < 0.05) accounting for reader variability, age of participants, and whether the examination in question was a baseline were performed. RESULTS: For the group as a whole, the introduction and routine use of tomosynthesis resulted in significant observed changes in recall rates from 8.7% to 5.5% (p < 0.001), nonsignificant changes in biopsy rates from 15.2 to 13.5 per 1000 screenings (p = 0.59), and cancer detection rates from 4.0 to 5.4 per 1000 screenings (p = 0.18). The invasive cancer detection rate increased from 2.8 to 4.3 per 1000 screening examinations (p = 0.07). The positive predictive value for recalls increased from 4.7% to 10.1% (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The introduction of breast tomosynthesis into our practice was associated with a significant reduction in recall rates and a simultaneous increase in breast cancer detection rates.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00008 · Cited by 1,686
Berg, W. A., Campassi, C., Langenberg, P., & Sexton, M. J. (2000) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.174.6.1741769 · Cited by 1,273
Carney, P. A., Miglioretti, D. L., Yankaskas, B. C., Kerlikowske, K., Rosenberg, R., Rutter, C. M., Geller, B. M., Abraham, L. A., Taplin, S. H., Dignan, M., et al. (2003) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-3-200302040-00008 · Cited by 1,142
Breast Cancer Screening: A Summary of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Humphrey, L. L., Helfand, M., Chan, B. K. S., & Woolf, S. H. (2002) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-137-5_part_1-200209030-00012 · Cited by 1,137
Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis
Kerlikowske, K. M. (1995) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.273.2.149 · Cited by 1,131
Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography.
Bird, R. E., Wallace, T. W., & Yankaskas, B. C. (1992) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.184.3.1509041 · Cited by 820
Tabár, L., Vitak, B., Chen, T. H.-H., Yen, A. M.-F., Cohen, A., Tot, T., Chiu, S. Y.-H., Chen, S. L.-S., Fann, J. C.-Y., Rosell, J., et al. (2011) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.11110469 · Cited by 791
Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging.
Niklason, L. T., Christian, B. T., Niklason, L. E., Kopans, D. B., Castleberry, D. E., Opsahl-Ong, B. H., Landberg, C. E., Slanetz, P. J., Giardino, A. A., Moore, R., et al. (1997) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.205.2.9356620 · Cited by 763
Youlden, D. R., Cramb, S. M., Dunn, N. A. M., Muller, J. M., Pyke, C. M., & Baade, P. D. (2012) · Cancer Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.canep.2012.02.007 · Cited by 709
Variability in Radiologists' Interpretations of Mammograms
Elmore, J. G., Wells, C. K., Lee, C. H., Howard, D. H., & Feinstein, A. R. (1994) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199412013312206 · Cited by 601
Cited by
Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement
Siu, A. L., & on behalf of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2016) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m15-2886 · Cited by 2,094
Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis in Combination With Digital Mammography
Friedewald, S. M., Rafferty, E. A., Rose, S. L., Durand, M. A., Plecha, D. M., Greenberg, J. S., Hayes, M. K., Copit, D. S., Carlson, K. L., Cink, T. M., et al. (2014) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2014.6095 · Cited by 851
Self-citationACR Appropriateness Criteria Breast Cancer Screening
Mainiero, M. B., Lourenco, A., Mahoney, M. C., Newell, M. S., Bailey, L., Barke, L. D., D'Orsi, C., Harvey, J. A., Hayes, M. K., Huynh, P. T., et al. (2013) · Journal of the American College of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2012.09.036 · Cited by 342
Screening for Breast Cancer in 2018—What Should We be Doing Today?
Seely, J. M., & Alhassan, T. (2018) · Current Oncology · doi:10.3747/co.25.3770 · Cited by 258
Metadata
- Authors
- Rose, S. L., Tidwell, A. L., Bujnoch, L. J., Kushwaha, A. C., Nordmann, A. S., & Sexton, R.
- Venue
- American Journal of Roentgenology
- Publisher
- American Roentgen Ray Society
- Published
- 2013-06
- Volume
- 200
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1401-1408
- ISSN
- 0002-9580 (ISSN-L)
- 0361-803X
- 1546-3141
- OpenAlex
- W2092688199
- Cited by
- 329
- References
- 19
- FWCI
- 37.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Implementation of Breast Tomosynthesis in a Routine Screening Practice: An Observational Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2214/ajr.12.9672
- The paper
- Rose, S. L., Tidwell, A. L., Bujnoch, L. J., Kushwaha, A. C., Nordmann, A. S., & Sexton, R. (2013). Implementation of Breast Tomosynthesis in a Routine Screening Practice: An Observational Study. American Journal of Roentgenology. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.12.9672
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
