ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2018
Comparison of the diagnostic efficacy between ultrasound elastography and magnetic resonance imaging for breast masses.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determining the elastography strain ratio cut off value for differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2022Pooled it
- Innovative integration of automated breast volume scan and ultrasound elastography for enhanced differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Clinical validation of the novel CLIA-CA-62 assay efficacy for early-stage breast cancer detection.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Diagnostic performance of mammography and magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating mammographically visible breast masses.The Journal of international medical research · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study compared the efficacy of ultrasound elastography (UE), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and the combination of the two methods (UE+MRI) in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast tumors. In total, 86 patients with breast masses were recruited and evaluated by UE, MRI and UE+MRI. Strain ratios of UE were calculated for the breast mass and adjacent normal tissues. In addition, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was obtained, while the sensitivity and specificity were calculated to determine the optimal cut-off point for the differential diagnosis. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was also calculated to evaluate the diagnostic performance of these methods. The results indicated that the diagnostic accuracy of UE+MRI was significantly higher compared with the UE or MRI methods in the differential diagnosis of invasive ductal, invasive lobular, intraductal papillary, medullary and mucinous carcinomas (all P<0.05). The optimal cut-off points of ROC curve of the Strain Ratio in the diagnosis of breast lesions were 2.81, 3.76 and 3.42 for UE, MRI and UE+MRI, respectively. Furthermore, the AUC values were 86.7, 79.2 and 91.4%, while the diagnostic accuracy rates were 82.5, 75.5 and 95.3%, for UE, MRI and UE+MRI, respectively. Accuracy rate differences between UE and MRI or between UE and UE+MRI were statistically significant (P<0.05), whereas no significant difference existed between MRI and UE+MRI (P>0.05). Finally, the diagnostic consistency of the UE+MRI method with the pathological diagnosis was higher compared with UE or MRI alone. In conclusion, the combination of UE and MRI is superior to the use of UE or MRI alone in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast masses.
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.