ArticleEuropean radiology2017
Comparison between automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) versus hand-held ultrasound as a second look procedure after magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in European radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating Efficiency of Time Use and Operational Costs in a Breast Clinic Workflow: A Comparative Analysis Between Automated Breast Ultrasound and Handheld Ultrasound.European journal of breast health · 2023Article
- Recent Advances in Ultrasound Breast Imaging: From Industry to Clinical Practice.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: an evaluation of its efficacy and research progress.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Comparison of AI-powered 3D automated ultrasound tomography with standard handheld ultrasound for the visualization of the hands-clinical proof of concept.Skeletal radiology · 2022Article
- Fifty years of Shannon information theory in assessing the accuracy and agreement of diagnostic tests.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2022Review
- Pros and Cons for Automated Breast Ultrasound (ABUS): A Narrative Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Article
- Beyond kappa: an informational index for diagnostic agreement in dichotomous and multivalue ordered-categorical ratings.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2020Article
- Utility and Diagnostic Performance of Automated Breast Ultrasound System in Evaluating Pure Non-Mass Enhancement on Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Korean journal of radiology · 2020Article
- Diagnostic value of an automated breast volume scanner compared with a hand-held ultrasound: a meta-analysis.Gland surgery · 2019Article
- Automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) in assessing breast cancer size: A comparison with conventional ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging.European radiology · 2018Article
- Automated breast ultrasound: basic principles and emerging clinical applications.La Radiologia medica · 2018Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the agreement between automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) and conventional ultrasound (US) as a second-look (SL) tool for assessing additional findings found on MRI.
methodsOver a 7-month period, we prospectively assigned to SL-US and SL-ABVS all patients undergoing 1.5 T breast MRI in whom additional findings were found. Five experienced breast radiologists independently interpreted SL-US and SL-ABVS in blinded sessions to evaluate the detection rate of MRI findings and assign them to BI-RADS categories. We calculated the agreement between the two methods in assessing MRI findings as significant (BI-RADS 3-5) versus not significant (BI-RADS 1-2), as well as their cancer detection rate.
resultsIn a population of 131 patients, SL-ABVS and SL-US showed a comparable detection rate of MRI findings (69.3 vs. 71.5%) (p > 0.05; McNemar test), with an almost perfect agreement in assessing them as significant or not (k = 0.94). This translated into a comparably high cancer detection rate (83.8% for SL-ABVS vs. 87.0% for SL-US). Only 1/31 cancers was missed by SL-ABVS.
conclusionsSL-ABVS and SL-US are nearly equivalent in assessing the significance of MRI findings, leading to a comparable cancer detection rate. SL-ABVS has the potential to replace SL-US in the SL scenario. KEY POINTS: • SL-ABVS shows almost perfect agreement with SL-US in assessing MRI findings. • SL-ABVS shows a comparably high cancer detection rate with respect to SL-US. • SL-ABVS has the potential to replace SL-US in evaluating additional MRI findings.
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.