ArticleThe journal of breast health2017
How Many of the Biopsy Decisions Taken at Inexperienced Breast Radiology Units Were Correct?
Article in The journal of breast health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Breast cancer classification based on convolutional neural network and image fusion approaches using ultrasound images.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Distinction between benign and malignant breast masses at breast ultrasound using deep learning method with convolutional neural network.Japanese journal of radiology · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn this study, we aimed to determine the need for biopsy in patients referred from other clinics for the performance of biopsy with the suspicion of breast cancer. MATERIALS AND
methods112 patients were included in the study. It was decided that their biopsies be performed following examinations in other clinics and they presented to the breast radiology unit of our hospital for a second opinion. The demographic characteristics, diagnostic studies completed in the other centers, properties of lesions, decision made as a result of examinations and BI-RADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems) categorizations were recorded on the registration forms of the study patients. In addition, the quality of examinations, reasons of repeat tests, additional tests features and the last decision of our clinic were documented. The obtained data were analyzed in terms of re-examination, additional tests and change in the biopsy decision. Changes in the biopsy decisions for patients were specifically inquired.
resultsThe biopsy decisions were cancelled in our breast radiology unit for 63 out of 112 patients (56.3%) whose biopsy decisions were made at an external institute. For 42 patients, examinations made by the other clinics were deemed adequate, yet there was no need for biopsy in 22 of them. The biopsy decisions were cancelled for 27 out of 47 patients (57.4%) with repeat examination and 18 out of 28 patients (64.3%) with additional tests because of the insufficient test quality.
conclusionIncorrect, inadequate breast screening and false positivity were higher at inexperienced institutes.
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.