Observational studyMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2020
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.
Observational study in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness evaluation of risk-based breast cancer screening in Urban Hebei Province.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Evidence and assessment of parenchymal patterns of ultrasonography for breast cancer detection among Chinese women: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical imaging · 2021Article
- Ultrasound Image Features under Deep Learning in Breast Conservation Surgery for Breast Cancer.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Currently, there is no national breast cancer screening program in China. In countries that have screening programs, screening mammography is used. This study aimed to compare the imaging parameters and diagnostic findings between ultrasound and mammography in women at high risk who had a histologically confirmed diagnosis of breast cancer in a population in China. MATERIAL AND METHODS A cross-sectional observational study included 1,687 women with a risk score of ≥30, according to the cancer risk assessment model, who underwent breast ultrasound and mammography. Women who had a Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) score of 4 or 5 were identified, and 155 women had breast cancer confirmed by breast biopsy and histology. The ultrasound and mammography findings were evaluated and compared. RESULTS Breast ultrasound resulted in significantly fewer inconclusive results (BI-RADS score, 0), when compared with mammography (p=0.046). In cases with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of breast cancer (BI-RADS score, 4), the diagnostic sensitivity of breast ultrasound and mammography were 0.989 and 0.859, respectively. In cases with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of breast cancer (BI-RADS score, 5), the diagnostic sensitivity of breast ultrasound and mammography were 1.000 and 0.984, respectively. In cases with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of benign breast lesions (BI-RADS score, 2), there was no significant difference between breast ultrasound and mammography. CONCLUSIONS In a population of women in China, breast ultrasound was a more sensitive diagnostic imaging method for women with high risk BI-RADS 4 and 5 breast lesions.
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.