ArticleLa Radiologia medica2017
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and MR Spectroscopic Methods in Understanding Breast Cancer Biology and Metabolism.Metabolites · 2022Review
- MR spectroscopy in breast cancer metabolomics.Analytical science advances · 2021Review
- Multiparameter MRI Model With DCE-MRI, DWI, and Synthetic MRI Improves the Diagnostic Performance of BI-RADS 4 Lesions.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Preoperative loco-regional staging of invasive lobular carcinoma with contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM).La Radiologia medica · 2019Article
- Focus on the glycerophosphocholine pathway in choline phospholipid metabolism of cancer.NMR in biomedicine · 2019Review
- In vivo MR spectroscopy for breast cancer diagnosis.BJR open · 2019Review
- A simple classification system (the Tree flowchart) for breast MRI can reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies in MRI-only lesions.European radiology · 2017Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo test 3T proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (
methodsPatients with BI-RADS 4-5 lesions at mammography/ultrasound were prospectively enrolled. After contrast-enhanced breast MRI, single-voxel MRS (point-resolved volume selection, PRESS); pencil-beam shimming; volume of interest 1 cm
resultsReliable spectra were obtained in 115/127 lesions (91%), with a mean FWHM of 32.4 Hz (range 8-45 Hz). A tCho peak SNR ≥2 was detected in 66 malignant lesions (62 invasive cancers; 4 ductal carcinoma in situ) and in 3 benign lesions. Excluding lesions located ≤1 cm from the skin (n = 3) or pectoral muscle (n = 11), sensitivity was 65/73 [89%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 80-95%], and specificity 25/28 (89%) (95% CI: 72-98%). Considering only invasive cancers, sensitivity reached 61/68 (90%, 95% CI: 81-96%). MRS additional time was 8 min.
conclusionsWhen lesions close to the skin or pectoral muscle are excluded, 3T
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.