ArticleMedicine2017
Is there an extraclinical value of automated breast volume scanner compared with hand-held ultrasound?: A pilot study.
Article in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the extraclinical value of automated breast volume scanning (ABVS) in the diagnosis of breast tumor compare to hand-handle ultrasound (HHUS).One hundred twenty-four patients with breast tumor were performed HHUS and ABVS before operation. The research focused on whether there were newly found tumors or new findings on the coronal planes by using ABVS compared with HHUS. Then, the classification adjustments of breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) were made according to new findings on the coronal planes by using ABVS.There are totally 166 breast tumors found in 124 patients by HHUS, while 8 more were observed by ABVS, 4 of which were malignant and the rest were benign. The sensitivity and specificity of ABVS coronal plane findings were 37.0% and 92.5%, respectively. The area under receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.89 before the corrected classification versus 0.93 after the corrected classification, there were no significant differences (P > .05).There was no significant extraclinical value in differentiating diagnosis of malignant tumors and benign breast tumors by ABVS comparing to HHUS. However, those minimal lesions missed diagnosis could be found by ABVS with continuously automatic scanning.
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.