ReviewEuropean journal of radiology open2016
The value of "constant sharpness" as a diagnostic sign in MR-Mammography.
Review in European journal of radiology open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo examine "constant lesion sharpness" as a morphological diagnostic sign in the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant lesions. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis prospective study had institutional review board approval and was HIPAA compliant. In total 1014 consecutive patients were examined (mean age 55 years ± 13 years) and evaluated in our University hospital towards the morphological shape of the lesion borders. The "Constant sharpness Sign" was defined as a lesion remaining continuously sharp for the duration of the dynamic scan. Inclusion criteria were unclear findings (e.g. BIRADS III/IV), Preoperative staging (BRIDAS IV/V), and referred patients from local clinic of gynecology. Exclusion criteria were MRM-examination ≤1 year before, status after surgery and/or biopsy, chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy. Reference Standard was histological verification. Images were diagnosed by two experienced radiologists in consensus, blinded to the standard of reference.
results1014 patients with 1084 lesions (436 benign, 648 malignant lesions) were included into the study. 41.5% of benign lesions and 6.8% (181/436) of malignant lesions displayed a constant sharpness as an accompanying morphological sign (P < 0.001). This resulted in a sensitivity of 41.5%, specificity of 93.2%, a positive likelihood ratio of 6.1%, a negative likelihood ratio of 0.63 and an odd's ratio of 9,7%. SUMMARY AND
conclusionThe constant sharpness sign seems to be an accurate predictor of benign breast lesions, which may help to increase the accuracy of MRM as a morphological sign.
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.