ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2017
Evaluation of the Efficacy of Clinical Breast Examination Gloves in the Diagnosis of Breast Lumps.
Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 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.
- The Impact of Education on Knowledge Attitude and Practice of Breast Self-Examination Among Adolescents Girls at the Fiwasaye Girls Grammar School Akure, Nigeria.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRecent studies have questioned the efficacy of mammography in reducing breast cancer-related mortality. Additionally, the efficacies of commercially available gloves marketed as aiding the detection of breast lumps have not been independently verified.
aimTo evaluate the efficacy of clinical breast examination gloves in the detection of breast lumps. MATERIALS AND
methodsDuring the period from October 2011 to June 2012, patients were submitted to clinical examination with and without gloves. This prospective study involved 202 patients who underwent conventional clinical breast examination (test 1) or clinical breast examination with Sensifemme
resultsThe mean age of the patients was 43 years; 298 breast lumps were detected. In the clinical examination group (test 1), sensitivity was 54%, specificity was 78%, and accuracy was 57%. These rates for clinical breast examinations with gloves (test 2) were 68%, 58%, and 66%, respectively. The glove increased the diagnosis of breast nodules by 14%; the rate of false-positives was also higher (42% for test 2 compared to 22% for test 1). The accuracy of the glove was found to be superior to clinical examination after 100 patients had been examined. The kappa indices for test 1 vs. test 3 and for test 2 vs. test 3 were 0.15 and 0.16, respectively.
conclusionClinical examination using the glove was more effective than clinical examination with bare hands for the diagnosis of breast lumps, as it increased the sensitivity and accuracy of lump detection. However, this was at the expense of a higher false-positive rate, which can lead to further tests, unnecessary biopsies, and patient anxiety. The concordance of clinical examination results (whether performed with or without the glove) with those of ultrasonography is weak. Moreover, the glove has a steep learning curve that may discourage its use in certain circumstances.
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.