ArticleElectronic physician2017
Magnetic resonance mammography in comparison with mammography in the discovery of multifocal, multicentric and bilateral lesions of breast cancer.
Article in Electronic physician, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Locoregional staging of breast cancer: contrast-enhanced mammography versus breast magnetic resonance imaging.La Radiologia medica · 2024Article
- Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography and Contrast-Enhanced MRI in Screening Multifocal and Multicentric Lesions in Breast Cancer Patients.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2022Article
- MicroRNA-216b targetsInternational journal of biological sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer is one of the health system problems and important diseases that is rising in developing and advanced countries.
objectiveThis study aimed to determine the difference of Magnetic Resonance Mammography (MRM) findings versus mammography in detecting multifocal, multi-centric and malignant bilateral lesions in patients with known breast cancer in Tehran.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted in Iran and Tehran among breast cancer patients between January 2015 and February 2016. Patients were included in the study prior to surgery, at the request of a surgeon with the aim of detecting multifocal, multi-centric and bilateral lesions. Demographic information was also collected from patients. The results for quantitative variables were expressed as mean and standard deviations, and for qualitative variables, were expressed as relative and absolute frequency. Chi-square test was used to compare the two methods. SPSS Ver.24 (IBM) software was used to analyze the data.
resultsThirty-nine patients were enrolled in the study. The mean age of patients in this study was 48.46±6.836. In mammography, 13 (33.3%) had Composition C and 26 (66.7%) had Composition D according to the type of Composition. In total, 25 patients (89.3%) had one lesion and 3 patients (10.7%) had more than two lesions. In MRM, all lesions observed were mass (54 masses). The number of lesions found in MRM was 27 patients with one lesion (58.9%), 6 patients with two lesions (20.5%) and 5 patients with three lesions (20.6%). MRM detected more lesions compared to mammography (p<0.0001). The value of Chi-square test with a degree of freedom and error level of 0.05 was 3.71 and p<0.0001 that showed a significant relationship between the number of MRM findings in comparison with mammography.
conclusionThe results of our study showed that two or more lesions and bilateral lesions in MRM were more than mammography in women with B Breast Composition C, D; the findings showed that MRM has a better ability to detect breast masses, and can affect the patient's surgical procedure.
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.