Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28713173›Full record

ArticleGeburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde2017

A Standard Mammography Unit - Standard 3D Ultrasound Probe Fusion Prototype: First Results.

Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland, Sebastian M Jud, Peter A Fasching, Arndt Hartmann, Marcus Radicke, Claudia Rauh, Michael Uder, Marius Wunderle, Paul Gass, Hanna Langemann and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rüdiger Schulz-WendtlandInstitute of Diagnostic Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Sebastian M JudDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Erlangen, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Peter A FaschingDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Erlangen, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Arndt HartmannInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Erlangen, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Marcus RadickeSiemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany.
Claudia RauhDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Erlangen, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Michael UderInstitute of Diagnostic Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Marius WunderleDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Erlangen, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Paul GassDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Erlangen, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Hanna LangemannDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Erlangen, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Matthias W BeckmannDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Erlangen, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Julius EmonsDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Erlangen, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Universitätsklinikum Erlangen · DESiemens Healthineers (Germany) · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe combination of different imaging modalities through the use of fusion devices promises significant diagnostic improvement for breast pathology. The aim of this study was to evaluate image quality and clinical feasibility of a prototype fusion device (fusion prototype) constructed from a standard tomosynthesis mammography unit and a standard 3D ultrasound probe using a new method of breast compression. MATERIALS AND

methodsImaging was performed on 5 mastectomy specimens from patients with confirmed DCIS or invasive carcinoma (BI-RADS

resultsThe quality of digital mammogram images produced by the fusion prototype was comparable to those produced using conventional compression. The newly developed compression plate did not influence the applied x-ray dose. The method was not more labour intensive or time-consuming than conventional mammography. From the technical perspective, fusion of the two modalities was achievable.

conclusionIn this study, using only a few mastectomy specimens, the fusion of an automated 3D ultrasound machine with a standard mammography unit delivered images of comparable quality to conventional mammography. The device allows simultaneous ultrasound - the second important imaging modality in complementary breast diagnostics - without increasing examination time or requiring additional staff.

Indexed as

breast ultrasoundcomplementary breast diagnosticsmammography

Identifiers

PMID28713173
PMCPMC5507113
OpenAlexW2608014598

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.