ReviewJournal of ultrasonography2012
Errors and mistakes in breast ultrasound diagnostics.
Review in Journal of ultrasonography, 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A stochastic modelling framework for cancer patient trajectories: combining tumour growth, metastasis, and survival.Journal of mathematical biology · 2025Article
- Factors Associated with False Positive Breast Cancer Results in the Real-Time Sonoelastography Evaluation of Solid Breast Lesions.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Article
- B-Mode and Doppler Ultrasonography in a Murine Model of Ehrlich Solid Carcinoma With Different Growth Patterns.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- Intra-abdominal fat. Part I. The images of the adipose tissue localized beyond organs.Journal of ultrasonography · 2015Review
- Errors and mistakes in ultrasound diagnostics of the thyroid gland.Journal of ultrasonography · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sonomammography is often the first additional examination performed in the diagnostics of breast diseases. The development of ultrasound imaging techniques, particularly the introduction of high frequency transducers, matrix transducers, harmonic imaging and finally, elastography, influenced the improvement of breast disease diagnostics. Nevertheless, as in each imaging method, there are errors and mistakes resulting from the technical limitations of the method, breast anatomy (fibrous remodeling), insufficient sensitivity and, in particular, specificity. Errors in breast ultrasound diagnostics can be divided into impossible to be avoided and potentially possible to be reduced. In this article the most frequently made errors in ultrasound have been presented, including the ones caused by the presence of artifacts resulting from volumetric averaging in the near and far field, artifacts in cysts or in dilated lactiferous ducts (reverberations, comet tail artifacts, lateral beam artifacts), improper setting of general enhancement or time gain curve or range. Errors dependent on the examiner, resulting in the wrong BIRADS-usg classification, are divided into negative and positive errors. The sources of these errors have been listed. The methods of minimization of the number of errors made have been discussed, including the ones related to the appropriate examination technique, taking into account data from case history and the use of the greatest possible number of additional options such as: harmonic imaging, color and power Doppler and elastography. In the article examples of errors resulting from the technical conditions of the method have been presented, and those dependent on the examiner which are related to the great diversity and variation of ultrasound images of pathological breast lesions.
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.