ArticleGland surgery2019
Diagnostic value of an automated breast volume scanner compared with a hand-held ultrasound: a meta-analysis.
Article in Gland surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-Mass Lesions on Automated Breast Ultrasound: An Exploratory Analysis of Imaging Features Associated with Malignancy and Differentiation from Transient Non-Mass ABUS Findings.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Supplemental Breast Ultrasound in Mammography Screening for Women with Critically Dense Breasts.Cancers · 2026Article
- Adjunct Automated Breast Ultrasound in Mammographic Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of imaging · 2025Review
- Innovative integration of automated breast volume scan and ultrasound elastography for enhanced differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A multi-centre, randomised trial for diagnostic efficacy of the automatic breast volume scanner ultrasound for breast cancer screening in China.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- A Prospective Comparative Evaluation of Handheld Ultrasound Examination (HHUS) or Automated Ultrasound Examination (ABVS) in Women with Dense Breast.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Computer-Aided Detection (CAD) in Screening Automated Breast Ultrasound Based on Characteristics of CAD Marks and False-Positive Marks.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Metabolic reprogramming enables the auxiliary diagnosis of breast cancer by automated breast volume scanner.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Automated breast US as the primary screening test for breast cancer among East Asian women aged 40-49 years: a multicenter prospective study.European radiology · 2021Article
- Diagnostic performance of combined use of automated breast volume scanning & hand-held ultrasound for breast lesions.The Indian journal of medical research · 2021Article
- Apparent diffusion coefficient magnetic resonance imaging (ADC-MRI) in the axillary breast cancer lymph node metastasis detection: a narrative review.Gland surgery · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe diagnostic performance of an automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) compared with that of a hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) for breast cancer remains unclear. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic performances of the ABVS and HHUS for breast cancer.
methodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and SinoMed databases to identify eligible studies up until November 14, 2018. Studies comparing ABVS and HHUS for differentiating benign and malignant breast tumors were included. A meta-analysis was performed to generate pooled diagnostic accuracy parameters [sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), area under the curve (AUC), and the Q* index] and detection rates for ABVS and HHUS.
resultsNine studies involving 1,376 patients and 1,527 lesions were included in the meta-analysis for diagnostic accuracy. The pooled sensitivity was 0.93 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.91-0.95] for ABVS and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.88-0.92) for HHUS, and the pooled specificity was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.88) for ABVS and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79-0.84) for HHUS. The pooled DOR was 88.66 (95% CI, 51.44-152.78) for ABVS and 41.06 for HHUS (95% CI, 26.58-63.42). The AUC of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) was 0.9496 for ABVS and 0.9143 for HHUS, and the Q* index was 0.8899 for ABVS and 0.8469 for HHUS. Meta-regression showed no significant difference between the diagnostic accuracy of ABVS and HHUS (P=0.0771). No publication bias was found. Thirteen published studies involving 1,047 pathologically confirmed malignant lesions were included to generate a pooled detection rate. The pooled detection rate was 1.00 (95% CI, 1.00-1.00) for both ABVS and HHUS, for which a publication bias was found.
conclusionsABVS can be used as an appropriate screening tool for breast cancer as well as HHUS in diagnostic accuracy and detection rate. Considering other advantages of ABVS including non-radioactivity, sensitivity to dense breast, three-dimensional reconstruction, time-saving and repeatability, it might be a promising screening tool for young or dense-breast women in the future.
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.