ArticleIndian journal of surgical oncology2012
Accuracy of clinical examination of breast lumps in detecting malignancy: a retrospective study.
Article in Indian journal of surgical oncology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Imaging and Diagnostic Tools for Cetacean Mammary Gland Assessment: Challenges and Future Directions for Marine Mammal Pathology, Medicine and Research.Journal of mammary gland biology and neoplasia · 2025Review
- Article
- A Comprehensive Review of Breast Fibroadenoma: Correlating Clinical and Pathological Findings.Cureus · 2023Review
- Evaluation of the Efficacy of Clinical Breast Examination Gloves in the Diagnosis of Breast Lumps.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2017Article
- Cognizance and utilization about breast cancer screening among the health professional female students and staffs of University Kuala Lumpur, Royal College of Medicine Perak, Malaysia.Indian journal of medical and paediatric oncology : official journal of Indian Society of Medical & Paediatric OncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical examination is a simple method to detect breast lumps and their nature as it is inexpensive and non-invasive and if found to be accurate, might be of great value as a diagnostic tool. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of clinical examination and its contribution towards the diagnosis of a palpable breast lump. The study was record based and conducted at a University Medical College Hospital and a tertiary referral centre of South India. Patient files of those women who presented with a breast lump between January to December 2011 were studied. A total of 120 patients were obtained following necessary exclusions. The accuracy of clinical assessment at an outpatient facility was determined by comparing the physician's diagnosis with the final histopathological diagnosis. The inter-observer agreement (kappa) for diagnosing a breast lump was 81 % (95 % Confidence Interval = 71 % to 92 %) indicating a good agreement between clinical and pathological diagnoses. McNemar test also indicated a high degree of concordance between the two diagnoses (4.17 % discordance). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of clinical breast examination in comparison to histopathology were 95, 88, 87, and 95 % respectively, with an overall accuracy of 90.8 %. 11 lumps were wrongly diagnosed at the time of clinical examination. Clinical examination of breast lumps was found to have a high sensitivity (94.5 %) and specificity (87.7 %) and can be used as the diagnostic tool to identify the nature of the lump, however, its value in diagnosing breast malignancy remains contributory due to the possibility that malignant lumps could be overlooked and present as advanced cancer at a later stage. Histopathology is recommended in all cases unless clinical examination is supported with strong evidence of benignity based on repeated breast imaging via ultrasound or mammogram (>35 yrs).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.