Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32676876›Full record

ArticleLa Radiologia medica2021

The value of coronal view as a stand-alone assessment in women undergoing automated breast ultrasound.

Simone Schiaffino, Licia Gristina, Simona Tosto, Elena Massone, Sara De Giorgis, Alessandro Garlaschi, Alberto Tagliafico, Massimo Calabrese

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in La Radiologia medica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. The Automation of Breast Ultrasonography and the Medical Time Dedicated to the Method.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2023
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. A Review of Breast Imaging for Timely Diagnosis of Disease.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Simone SchiaffinoRadiology Unit, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Piazza Edmondo Malan, 2, San Donato Milanese, MI, 20097, Italy. schiaffino.simone@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4243-888X
Licia GristinaDepartment of Radiology, University of Genoa, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Simona TostoDepartment of Radiology, Policlinico San Martino, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Elena MassoneDepartment of Radiology, University of Genoa, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Sara De GiorgisUniversity of Genoa, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Alessandro GarlaschiDepartment of Radiology, Policlinico San Martino, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Alberto TagliaficoDepartment of Radiology, University of Genoa, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Massimo CalabreseDepartment of Radiology, Policlinico San Martino, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
University of Genoa · ITOspedale Policlinico San Martino · ITIRCCS Policlinico San Donato · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAim of the study was to evaluate the value of automated breast ultrasound (AUS) in women with dense breast, in terms of reading times, diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement. The assessment of coronal images alone versus the complete multiplanar (MPR) views was evaluated.

methodsBetween August and October 2017, consecutive patients with dense breast that were referred to our Institute, for post-mammography ultrasound assessment, pre-operative assessment or follow-up of known benign lesions, were invited to undergo an additional study with AUS. Three radiologists, (5, 15 and 25 years of experience in breast imaging), reviewed the exams twice: first assessing reconstructed coronal images alone, second the complete MPR views. Reading times, diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement were assessed.

resultsOne hundred eighty-eight women were included, for a total of 67 breast lesions, 25 (37%) malignant and 42 (63%) benign. Compared to MPR, coronal view was associated with: lower reading times, respectively, for the three readers: 83 ± 37, 84 ± 43 and 76 ± 30 versus 163 ± 109, 131 ± 57, 151 ± 42 s (p < 0.035); lower sensitivity: 44.8%, 62.1%, 55.2% versus 69.0% (p = 0.059), 65.5% (p = 0.063), 72.4% (p = 0.076), respectively; better specificity: 94.1%, 93.7%, 94.2% versus 89.5% (p = 0.093), 87.4% (p = 0.002), 91.6% (p = 0.383), respectively. Agreement between the most and the least experienced reader was fair to moderate for categorical variables and significant for continuous ones.

conclusionThe coronal view allows significantly lower reading times, a valuable feature in the screening setting, but its diagnostic performance makes the complete multiplanar assessment mandatory.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreast DensityBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMammographyMiddle AgedTime FactorsUltrasonography, MammaryAutomated breast ultrasoundBreast neoplasmsMammaryUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID32676876
OpenAlexW3043359872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.