ReviewEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2004
State of the art of current modalities for the diagnosis of breast lesions.
Review in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Breast Cancer OncoGuia.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2010Guideline
- The application of traditional machine learning and deep learning techniques in mammography: a review.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- AAWS-Net: Anatomy-aware weakly-supervised learning network for breast mass segmentation.PloS one · 2021Article
- Female breast cancer in Vietnam: a comparison across Asian specific regions.Cancer biology & medicine · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the availability of numerous diagnostic techniques comes the possible risk of the unjustified use of such techniques and a lack of rational clinical application. Clearly, errors of this nature would affect the diagnostic accuracy and therefore reduce the possibilities for treatment. It is not uncommon for women and also for general practitioners to be misinformed about which is the most suitable technique or rather, which is the best combination of the various techniques. For this reason, inappropriate tests are often requested or, conversely, there is failure to request tests which would in fact make a useful contribution to safeguarding the patient's health. This work has the following aims: (a) to set out precisely the real diagnostic contribution of each method, both radiological and otherwise, and suggest methods of application and indications consistent with the state of the art, and (b) to suggest the most effective and rational combinations of the various techniques and organisation of diagnostic activities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15085294What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.