ArticleKorean journal of radiology2020
Utility and Diagnostic Performance of Automated Breast Ultrasound System in Evaluating Pure Non-Mass Enhancement on Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
Article in Korean journal of radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Second-Look Ultrasonography for Evaluating BIRADS 3 and 4 Non Mass-Enhancement: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Progress in Ultrasound Research on Non-Mass Breast Lesions: Definition, Classification, and Differential Diagnosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Multivariable model to predict breast cancer in non-mass enhancement lesions: a study on contrast-enhanced mammography.European radiology · 2025Article
- An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy of Dynamic Contrast Enhancement and Diffusion-Weighted MRI in Differentiating Benign and Malignant Non-Mass Enhancement Lesions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Dynamic contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging findings that affect the magnetic resonance-directed ultrasound correlation of non-mass enhancement lesions: a single-center retrospective study.The British journal of radiology · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the utility and diagnostic performance of automated breast ultrasound system (ABUS) with that of hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) in evaluating pure non-mass enhancement (NME) lesions on breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred twenty-six consecutive MRI-visible pure NME lesions of 122 patients with breast cancer were assessed from April 2016 to March 2017. Two radiologists reviewed the preoperative breast MRI, ABUS, and HHUS images along with mammography (MG) findings. The NME correlation rate and diagnostic performance of ABUS were compared with that of HHUS, and the imaging features associated with ABUS visibility were analyzed.
resultsAmong 126 pure NME lesions, 100 (79.4%) were malignant and 26 (20.6%) were benign. The overall correlation rate was 87.3% (110/126) in ABUS and 92.9% (117/126) in HHUS. The sensitivity and specificity were 87% and 50% for ABUS and 92% and 42.3% for HHUS, respectively, with no significant differences (
conclusionABUS evaluation of pure NME lesions on MRI in patients with breast cancer is a useful technique with high visibility, especially in malignant lesions. The diagnostic performance of ABUS was comparable with that of conventional HHUS in evaluating NME 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.