ArticleCureus2020
Can Magnetic Resonance Imaging Replace Mammography and Ultrasonography for the Detection of Breast Lesions?
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The application of computer-aided diagnosis in Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System ultrasound training for residents-a randomized controlled study.Translational cancer research · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective We aimed to evaluate the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the visualization of breast lesions and to estimate whether MRI can be a reliable alternative to mammography (MG) and ultrasonography (USG) for this purpose. Materials and methods In this retrospective, single-center study, an analysis of medical files of 260 patients with breast masses as breast imaging reports and data system (BI-RADS) 4 and 5 at MRI was performed. The features of the breast lump, such as the side, location, multi foci or multicentricity, histopathological diagnosis, contrast-enhancement characteristics, radiological, and pathological axillary involvement, were noted. Consistency between MRI-BIRADS and MG+USG-BIRADS, as well as the association between lesion characteristics, was sought. Results The agreement ratio between the BI-RADS categories of MRI and MG+USG was 0.654 while consistency between histopathological diagnosis and MRI BI-RADS category was 0.838. The agreement between the BI-RADS category of MG+USG and histopathological diagnosis was 0.819. The consistency between MRI BI-RADS and MG+USG BI-RADS increased remarkably with the advancement of age. Similarly, the consistency between MRI BI-RADS and histopathological diagnosis tends to increase with the advancement of age. Nonmass contrast enhancement yielded the highest agreement ratios between MRI BI-RADS and MG+USG BI-RADS, histopathological diagnosis and MRI BI-RADS, and histopathological diagnosis and MG+USG BI-RADS. Conclusion Dynamic MRI is a useful and reliable method for imaging breast neoplasms. However, it is not devoid of disadvantages such as cost, attainability, and contrast use and it should be reserved as a problem-solving technique to be used in conjunction with conventional methods including MG and USG.
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.