SynthesisTumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine2015
In vivo post-contrast 1H-MRS evaluation of malignant and benign breast lesions: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 1H-MRS evaluation of breast lesions by using total choline signal-to-noise ratio as an indicator of malignancy: a meta-analysis.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2015Pooled it
- In vivo MR spectroscopy for breast cancer diagnosis.BJR open · 2019Review
- Changes in total choline concentration in the breast of healthy fertile young women in relation to menstrual cycle or use of oral contraceptives: a 3-TEuropean radiology experimental · 2018Article
- Breast Tissue Metabolism by Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy.Metabolites · 2017Review
- Clinical Breast MR Using MRS or DWI: Who Is the Winner?Frontiers in oncology · 2016Review
- Reply to: "in vivo post-contrast 1H-MRS evaluation of malignant and benign breast lesions: a meta-analysis".Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2015Article
- Comments on "In vivo post-contrast 1H-MRS evaluation of malignant and benign breast lesions: a meta-analysis".Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the in vivo post-contrast proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) for benign/malignant discrimination of focal breast lesions. Sixteen studies with a total of 661 malignant breast lesions and 388 benign breast lesions were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of post-contrast 1H-MRS were 74 % (95 % confidence interval (CI) 70-77 %) and 78 % (95 % CI 73-82 %), respectively. The positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and the negative likelihood ratio (NLR) were 4.00 (95 % CI 2.74-5.84) and 0.25 (95 % CI 0.17-0.37), respectively. From the fitted summary receiver operating characteristics curve (SROC), the AUC and Q* index were 0.89 and 0.83. Publication bias was present (t = 2.43, P = 0.029). Meta-regression analysis suggested that neither threshold effect nor evaluated covariates including method of choline analysis, strength of field, pulse sequence, repetition time (TR), and time interval were sources of heterogeneity (all P values >0.05). In vivo post-contrast 1H-MRS was useful for differentiation between malignant and benign focal breast lesions. However, pooled diagnostic measures might be overestimated. The standardization of the acquisition protocol as well as the post-processing method for post-contrast proton MRS need to be established for the future study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25260884What 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.