ArticleOncology letters2019
Diagnostic value of ultrasound combined with magnetic resonance imaging in different stages of breast cancer.
Article in Oncology letters, 2019. 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.
- Article
- Radiomics-clinical nomogram for preoperative tumor-node-metastasis staging prediction in breast cancer patients using dynamic enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.Translational cancer research · 2025Article
- Synthesis, radiolabelling, and biological assessment of folic acid-conjugated G-3IET nanobiotechnology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnostic value of ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in breast cancer were investigated. One hundred and forty breast cancer patients diagnosed in Heping Hospital Affiliated to Changzhi Medical College from June 2016 to June 2018 were collected, used as breast cancer group, 80 patients with benign breast tumor in the same period were the benign group. Pathological results were used to compare the diagnostic coincidence of US and MRI in breast cancer patients. The positive expression case rates of estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor were significantly higher in breast cancer group than those in benign group, but that of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Her-2) was significantly lower in breast cancer group than that in benign group (all P<0.05). The sensitivity (SEN) of MRI alone and that of US combined with MRI were higher than that of US alone (P<0.05). The specificity (SPE) of MRI alone was lower than that of US alone and US combined with MRI (P<0.05). The NPV of US combined with MRI was significantly higher than that of US alone (P<0.05). The Youden index (YI) of US combined with MRI was significantly higher than that of US alone and MRI alone. In the diagnosis of N2, that of US combined with MRI was significantly higher than those of US alone and MRI alone (P<0.05). In stages of M0 and M1 among three methods, those of MRI alone and US combined with MRI were higher than that of US alone (P<0.05). US combined with MRI for the diagnosis of breast cancer has higher SEN and SPE, with better accuracy rate for the identification of each stage. Reducing the incidence of missed diagnosis and misdiagnosis that may be caused by single diagnosis and treatment, it is conducive to clinical screening and guiding clinical symptomatic treatment.
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.