ArticleCancer management and research2018
Comprehensive analysis of clinical utility of three-dimensional ultrasound for benign and malignant breast masses.
Article in Cancer management and research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 5 of them syntheses 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, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of artificial intelligence in detecting tumor bone metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic performance of mammography and ultrasound in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of ultrasound · 2023Pooled it
- Clinical utility of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the diagnosis of benign and malignant small renal masses among Asian population.Cancer medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Assessment on clinical value of prostate health index in the diagnosis of prostate cancer.Cancer medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Utility of Serum EB Virus Zta Antibody in the Diagnostic of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Evidences From 2,126 Cases and 15,644 Controls.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Pooled it
- Serum proteomics identify potential biomarkers for nasopharyngeal carcinoma sensitivity to radiotherapy.Bioscience reports · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThree-dimensional (3-D) ultrasound is commonly used for screening breast cancer; however, the diagnostic accuracy of this method is unknown. Here, we performed a systematic search on the literature to assess the clinical utility of 3-D ultrasound in benign and malignant breast masses. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted searches in several online databases covering all publications prior to August 15, 2017. The bivariate random effects model was used to assess the overall sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary area under receiver operating curve (AUC) with their corresponding 95% CI.
resultsThe overall sensitivity of 3-D ultrasound for diagnosing benign and malignant breast masses was 89% (95% CI, 83%-93%) and the specificity was 88% (95% CI, 83%-92%) with high heterogeneity (
conclusionThree-dimensional ultrasound offers high sensitivity and specificity, with a high AUC, indicating a strong diagnostic value for detecting benign and malignant breast masses. Three-dimensional ultrasound may therefore represent an excellent option for secondary analysis of unclear 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.