Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28959066›Full record

ArticleGhana medical journal2017

Breast cancer screening in a resource poor country: Ultrasound versus mammography.

Olubukola At Omidiji, Princess C Campbell, Nicholas K Irurhe, Omolola M Atalabi, Oluyemisi O Toyobo

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Ghana medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. A literature review on the imaging methods for breast cancer.International journal of physiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology · 2022
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Knowledge and Attitudes about Breast Cancer among Women: A Wake-Up Call in Nigeria.Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Olubukola At OmidijiDepartment of Radiation Biology, Radiotherapy, Radiodiagnosis and Radiography, College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria.
Princess C CampbellDepartment of Community Medicine and Primary Care, College of Medicine University of Lagos, Nigeria.
Nicholas K IrurheDepartment of Radiation Biology, Radiotherapy, Radiodiagnosis and Radiography, College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria.
Omolola M AtalabiDepartment of Radiodiagnosis, College of Medicine University of Ibadan/University College Hospital, Ibadan. Oyo State Nigeria.
Oluyemisi O ToyoboDepartment of Radiology, Olabisi Onabanjo University Teaching Hospital, Ogun State, Nigeria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer is the commonest female cancer in Nigeria. Despite its increased awareness, affordability of available screening tools is a bane. Mammography, the goal standard for screening is costly and not widely available in terms of infrastructure, technical/personnel capabilities. Ultrasound is accessible and affordable.

objectivesThis study compared the use of ultrasound and mammography as breast cancer screening tools in women in South West Nigeria by characterizing and comparing the prevalent breast parenchyma, breast cancer features and the independent sensitivity of ultrasound and mammography.

methodsThis cross sectional comparative descriptive study used both ultrasound and mammography as screening tools in 300 consenting women aged 30 to 60 years who attended a free breast cancer screening campaign in a tertiary hospital in Lagos. Categorical variables were presented in tables and Chi squares for associations P-value set at ± 0.1.

resultsMean age was 41.01 + 6.5years with majority in the 30 - 39 year age group 139 (55%). Fatty (BIRADS A and B) parenchyma predominated {ultrasound 237 (79%); mammography 233 (77.7%)} in all age groups. 7 (2.3%) were confirmed malignant by histology with (6) in the 30-39 age group and (1) in the 40-49 age group. Ultrasound detected all the confirmed cases 7(100%), whereas mammography detected 6 (85%). Sensitivity was higher using ultrasound (100%) than mammography (85.7%).

conclusionUltrasound can be utilized as a first line of screening especially in remote/rural areas in developing world.

fundingPart funding from Run for Cure governmental organization.

Indexed as

MammographyUltrasonographyAdultBreast NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNigeriaSensitivity and SpecificityTertiary Care CentersBreast CancerMammographySensitivityUltrasoundWomen

Identifiers

PMID28959066
PMCPMC5611948

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.