Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32950046›Full record

ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2021

Interobserver and intermethod variability in data interpretation of breast strain elastography in suspicious breast lesions

Hale Turnaoğlu, Kemal Murat Haberal, Serdar Arslan, Meriç Yavuz Çolak, Funda Ulu Öztürk, Nihal Uslu

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 41% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Multiparametric Ultrasound Findings of Testicular Sarcoidosis.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hale TurnaoğluDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Başkent University, Ankara, TurkeyORCID 0000-0002-0781-0036
Kemal Murat HaberalDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Başkent University, Ankara, TurkeyORCID 0000-0002-8211-4065
Serdar ArslanDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Başkent University, Ankara, TurkeyORCID 0000-0001-7984-4326
Meriç Yavuz ÇolakDepartment of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Başkent University, Ankara, TurkeyORCID 0000-0002-0294-6874
Funda Ulu ÖztürkDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Başkent University, Ankara, TurkeyORCID 0000-0003-2782-2824
Nihal UsluDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Başkent University, Ankara, TurkeyORCID 0000-0002-8439-8700
Başkent University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background/aim: Strain elastography has the disadvantage of being operator-dependent. Interobserver variability is observed during image acquisition and interpretation. This study aimed to analyze the interobserver and intermethod variability of strain elastography in image interpretation and evaluate the diagnostic performance combining elasticity score and strain ratio with ultrasonography. Materials and methods: A retrospective study was conducted on 70 breast lesions evaluated with B-mode ultrasonography and strain elastography. B-mode ultrasonography findings, elasticity scores, and strain ratio values were evaluated using static images by two radiologists. BI-RADS assessment of the lesions and the decision of both observers as to whether the biopsy was required using B-mode ultrasonography, and the combined ultrasonography+elasticity score, and the combined ultrasonography+elasticity score+strain ratio were compared with the histopathological results. Also, the interobserver agreement was analyzed for all the combinations. Results: There was very good agreement (weighted κ = 0.865) between the observers for the elasticity scores. Very good agreement was observed between the observers for BI-RADS assessments using the combined ultrasonography+elasticity score and the combined ultrasonography+elasticity score+strain ratio (weighted κ = 0.848, and 0.902, respectively). Area under the curve of B-mode ultrasonography, the combined B-mode ultrasonography+elasticity score, and the combined B-mode ultrasonography+elasticity score+strain ratio, were calculated as 0.859, 0.866, and 0.916 for observer 1, and 0.851, 0.829, and 0.916 for observer 2, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the observers’ diagnostic performances in any of the combinations (P = 0.703, 0.067, and 0.972, respectively). Conclusion: In the evaluation and further assessment of breast lesions, semiquantitative strain ratio calculation may help improve diagnostic accuracy by reducing interpretational variety, when used together with B-mode ultrasonography and elasticity scoring, especially for inexperienced individuals.

Indexed as

Elasticity Imaging TechniquesAdultBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansRetrospective StudiesROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonography, MammaryBreastelasticity scoreintermethod variabilityinterobserver variabilitystrain elastographystrain ratio

Identifiers

PMID32950046
PMCPMC8203122
OpenAlexW3087747829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.