ArticleCroatian medical journal2020
Comparison of sonoelastographic values of breast tissue with mammographically and ultrasonically assessed density: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Croatian medical journal, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo determine the relationship between breast stiffness assessed with sonoelastography (elasticity) and breast tissue density assessed with mammography (MG) and ultrasound (US).
methodsThis cross-sectional study involved 100 women who underwent MG, gray-scale US, and shear-wave sonoelastography during 2013. Mammographic density was categorized into four groups and sonographic density into three groups according to Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System criteria. The stiffness of breast parenchymal and adipose tissue in all breast quadrants was quantified by shear-wave sonoelastography. Mean elastographic estimates were compared with MG- and US-derived density estimates.
resultsParenchymal and adipose tissue elasticity positively correlated with MG- and US-derived breast density (for parenchyma: for MG Kendall's tau b 0.522; Jonckheere-Terpstra test P<0.001 and for US Kendall's tau b 0.533; Jonckheere-Terpstra test P<0.001); the higher was the breast density on MG and US, the higher was the elastographic stiffness.
conclusionSonoelastographic breast stiffness strongly positively correlated with breast density. Thus, sonoelastography may have a potential for estimating the breast cancer risk, which allows a novel application of this technique in routine clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32643338PMC7358692W3041969265What 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.