ArticleOncotarget2017
Benign and malignant breast lesions identification through the values derived from shear wave elastography: evidence for the meta-analysis.
Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Determination of lymph node metastasis using quantitative ultrasound elastography of papillary thyroid carcinoma nodule: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical imaging · 2025Pooled it
- Shear wave elastography for solid breast masses evaluation: Quantitative measurement of mean elasticity value and elasticity ratio.European journal of radiology open · 2024Article
- Correlation of elastic characteristics of breast lesions with the expression of Smad2/3.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Evaluation of thyroid nodules by shear wave elastography: a review of current knowledge.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2021Review
- Article
- Diagnostic performance of qualitative and quantitative shear wave elastography in differentiating malignant from benign breast masses, and association with the histological prognostic factors.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2019Article
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
objectiveThe analysis was aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of shear wave elastography (SWE) for malignant breast lesions through a meta-analysis. MATERIALS AND
methodsRelated articles were searched in databases of Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane library. Overall sensitivity and specificity were analyzed with DerSimonian and Laird random effects model. Area under curve (AUC) with corresponding 95% confidence interval were also analyzed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of SWE.
resultsAccording to the inclusion criteria, 25 articles were selected. In the subgroup analysis, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of SWE in Asian population were 0.84 (0.79-0.88) and 0.87 (0.84-0.90), respectively, while they were 0.92 (0.86-0.96) and 0.89 (0.84-0.92) in Caucasian population. The diagnostic accuracy of SWE was a little higher for Caucasians than for Asians (0.95 vs. 0.92). The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of virtual touch tissue quantification (VTTQ) were 0.85 (0.77-0.91) and 0.93 (0.88-0.96), respectively. It showed a little higher value in specificity and summary receiver operating curve (sROC) than that of SWE (0.93 vs. 0.87; 0.95 vs. 0.93). In addition, maximum stiffness exhibited higher detection sensitivity than that of mean stiffness (0.91 vs. 0.85).
conclusionsSWE serves as an accurate diagnostic technology for discriminating malignant and benign breast lesions.
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.