ReviewFrontiers in oncology2016
Clinical Breast MR Using MRS or DWI: Who Is the Winner?
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sodium accumulation in breast cancer predicts malignancy and treatment response.British journal of cancer · 2022Trial
- Optimizing Image Quality with High-Resolution, Deep-Learning-Based Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Breast Cancer Patients at 1.5 T.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Non-contrast Breast MR Imaging.Radiologic clinics of North America · 2024Review
- MR spectroscopy in breast cancer metabolomics.Analytical science advances · 2021Review
- Article
- Is Elevated Choline on Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy a Reliable Marker of Breast Lesion Malignancy?Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Apparent diffusion coefficient magnetic resonance imaging (ADC-MRI) in the axillary breast cancer lymph node metastasis detection: a narrative review.Gland surgery · 2020Review
- Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Oncology: An Update.Cancers · 2020Review
- MRI-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: experience of a single tertiary referral cancer centre and prospects for the future.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2020Article
- How clinical imaging can assess cancer biology.Insights into imaging · 2019Review
- 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
- Predicting the response to neoadjuvant therapy for early-stage breast cancer: tumor-, blood-, and imaging-related biomarkers.Cancer management and research · 2018Review
- Breast Tissue Metabolism by Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy.Metabolites · 2017Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast gained a role in clinical practice thanks to the optimal sensitivity of contrast-enhanced (CE) protocols. This approach, first proposed 30 years ago and further developed as bilateral highly spatially resolved dynamic study, is currently considered superior for cancer detection to any other technique. However, other directions than CE imaging have been explored. Apart from morphologic features on unenhanced T2-weighted images, two different
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.