English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background Breast implant-related health problems are a subject of fierce debate. Reliable population-based estimates of implant prevalence rates are not available, however, due to a lack of historical registries and incomplete sales data, precluding absolute risk assessments. Objectives This study aimed to describe the methodology of a novel procedure to determine Dutch breast implant prevalence based on the evaluation of routine chest radiographs. Methods The validity of the new method was first examined in a separate study. Eight reviewers examined a series of 180 chest radiographs with (n = 60) or without (n = 120) a breast implant confirmed by a computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scan. After a consensus meeting with best-performing expert reviewers, we reviewed 3000 chest radiographs of women aged 20 to 70 years in 2 large regional hospitals in the Netherlands in 2015. To calculate the national breast implant prevalence, regional prevalence variations were corrected utilizing the National Breast Cancer Screening Program. Results Eight reviewers scored with a median sensitivity of 71.7% (range, 41.7%-85.0%) and a median specificity of 94.6% (range, 73.4%-97.5%). After a consensus meeting and a reevaluation by best-performing expert reviewers, sensitivity was 79.9% and specificity was 99.2%. The estimated national prevalence of breast implants among women between 20 and 70 years was 3.0%, ranging from 1.7% at 21 to 30 years to 3.9% between 51 and 60 years. Conclusions The novel method in this study was validated with a high sensitivity and specificity, resulting in accurate prevalence estimates and providing the opportunity to conduct absolute risk assessment studies on the health consequences of breast implants. Level of Evidence: 2

Breast Implant Prevalence in the Dutch Female Population Assessed by Chest Radiographs