ArticleMedicine2019
Contrast ultrasound versus ultrasound elastography for diagnosis of breast lumps: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Medicine, 2019. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Value of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography With SonoVue in the Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions: A Meta-Analysis.Technology in cancer research & treatmentPooled it
- Evaluating breast ultrasonography as a complementary diagnostic method in girls with central precocious puberty.Pediatric radiology · 2024Article
- Analysis of the accuracy of ultrasound elastography and BI-RADS classification of breast masses located within the superficial fat layer of the glands.Gland surgery · 2022Article
- A Cross-Sectional Observational Study to Compare the Role of Ultrasound with Mammography in Women Identified at High Risk for Breast Cancer in a Population in China.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2020Observational
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
Chinese women have dense and small breasts. Therefore, in China, contrast ultrasound and ultrasound elastography are commonly used for detection of the breast lumps. Purpose of the study was to compare the sensitivity and accuracy of ultrasound elastography with contrast ultrasound for the diagnosis of the breast lumps.A total of 1000 women with a damp in breast mass, breast pain, nipple discharge, and/or breast skin discharge were subjected to contrast ultrasound and ultrasound elastography. Women were subjected to stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy under B-mode ultrasonography (n = 750). The ultrasound examinations were graded on a 5-points scale method. Data were subjected to the Chi-square Independence test at 99% of confidence level.Ultrasound elastography was detected the same numbers of benign lesions (648 vs 651, P = .88), malignant lesions (90 vs 99, P = .53), and false positive lesions (5 vs 0, P = .07) as those detected by biopsies. However, diagnostic parameters for contrast ultrasound had a significant difference with those detected by biopsies (P < .0001 for all). For contrast ultrasound and ultrasound elastography, the working area to detect deformation in the image of the breast lesions at least 1 time were 0% to 45% and 5% to 100%.Ultrasound elastography is the most reliable diagnostic method for detection of the breast lumps.
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.