ArticleBreast care (Basel, Switzerland)2019
Diagnostic Accuracy of Breast Medical Tactile Examiners (MTEs): A Prospective Pilot Study.
Article in Breast care (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Synchronous versus metachronous spinal metastasis: a comparative study of survival outcomes following neurosurgical treatment.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024Article
- Survival after resection of brain metastasis: impact of synchronous versus metachronous metastatic disease.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe usefulness of clinical breast examination (CBE) in general and in breast cancer screening programs has been a matter of debate. This study investigated whether adding vision-impaired medical tactile examiners (MTEs) improves the predictiveness of CBE for suspicious lesions and analyzed the feasibility and acceptability of this approach.
methodsThe prospective study included 104 patients. Physicians and MTEs performed CBEs, and mammography and ultrasound results were used as the gold standard. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated and logistic regression models were used to compare the predictive value of CBE by physicians alone, MTEs alone, and physicians and MTEs combined.
resultsFor CBEs by physicians alone, MTEs alone, and both combined, sensitivity was 71, 82, and 89% and specificity was 55, 45, and 35%, respectively. Using adjusted logistic regression models, the validated areas under the curve were 0.685, 0.692, and 0.710 (median bootstrapped p value (DeLong) = 0.381).
conclusionThe predictive value for a suspicious breast lesion in CBEs performed by MTEs in patients without prior surgery was similar to that of physician-conducted CBEs. Including MTEs in the CBE procedure in breast units thus appears feasible and could be a way of utilizing their skills.
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.