ArticleOncology letters2019
Correlation analysis between ultrasonography and mammography with other risk factors related to 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 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging Features in Diagnosis of Breast Cancer and Evaluation of Effect of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-Targeted Therapy.BioMed research international · 2022Trial
- Efficacy of ultrasonography and mammography in detecting features of breast cancer.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Value and correlation analysis between ultrasound and mammography in the diagnosis and other risk factors related to breast cancer were explored. A total of 1,473 patients who underwent breast color ultrasonography and molybdenum target X-ray examination in Binzhou Medical University Hospital from March 2017 to August 2018 were collected, and the patient's ultrasound and mammography results were compared, also the pathological biopsy was used as the reference golden criteria to calculate the value of both test methods and the value of combined diagnosis in breast cancer. The risk factors associated with breast cancer were analyzed. Among the 1,473 patients, 387 breast cancer patients were detected by ultrasonography, 351 by mammography and 339 cases by combined diagnosis. A total of 314 cases were diagnosed as breast cancer after pathological biopsy. However, there were significant differences in tumor size, stages, and BI-RADS grades (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the diagnostic efficacy between ultrasonography and mammography (P>0.05), however, the diagnostic efficacy of ultrasonography combined with mammography was significantly better than the two single tests (P<0.05). After logistic regression analysis, there was no significant correlation between residence address, height, blood type, ethnicity, or education with breast cancer (P>0.05). However, age, fertility status, and BMI were all risk factors related to breast cancer (OR>1; P<0.05). In conclusion, ultrasonography combined with mammography can effectively improve the early diagnosis rate of breast cancer, however, the patient's age, birth status, and BMI may affect the results of ultrasonography and mammography. In clinical practice, it is necessary to determine the imaging results in combination with the actual situation of the patients to improve the diagnosis rate of breast cancer.
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.