ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
Ultrasound elastography and magnetic resonance examinations are effective for the accurate diagnosis of mammary duct ectasia.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and sonographic features of nipple lesions.Medicine · 2020Article
- Diagnostic evaluations of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in mammary duct ectasia and breast cancer.Oncology letters · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study is to investigate the values of multiple quantitative evaluation parameters in the diagnosis of mammary duct ectasia (MDE), using real-time ultrasound elastography (UE) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
methodsThis retrospective study was performed on 15 patients (16 lesions) with MDE. Ultrasound examination was performed with the LOGIQ E9 ultrasound instrument, with all lesions being examined by routine ultrasound and UE. MRI examination was performed with a Signa HD × 3.0T TWINSP MR System, including of plain-scan, diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, and proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Imaging features, as well as semi-quantitative and quantitative parameters, were analyzed to determine their diagnostic value for MDE.
resultsAccording to the five-point scale in UE, twelve lesions belonged to 1-3 point scale, and four lesions were in 4-5 point scale, with an average of 2.93 ± 0.77. In dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, the lesions appeared as obviously enhanced signals. The MRI early-enhancement rate ranged from 0.35 to 1.07 (0.67 ± 0.30 on average); the time peak ranged between 192 and 330 s (248 ± 37 s on average); the peak-enhancement ratio ranged from 2.26 to 3.06, with an average of 2.59 ± 0.33. According to MRI time-signal intensity curves classified into persistently enhancing (type I), plateau (type II) and washout (type III), 12 lesions (75%) belonged to type I, three (18.75%) belonged to type II, and one (6.25%) belonged to type III. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy showed that a total choline peak occurred only in one lesion. The diagnosis accuracy rates for ultrasound alone, MRI alone and the combination of ultrasound and MRI were 75% (12/16), 87.5% (14/16) and 93.75% (15/16), respectively.
conclusionsBoth ultrasound and MRI show clinical importance in MDE diagnosis. However, UE, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, and magnetic resonance spectroscopy demonstrate significantly better diagnosis and differential diagnosis of MDE.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26309502PMC4538125W1580698827What 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.