ReviewDer Radiologe2021
[Ultrasound elastography techniques in breast cancer].
Review in Der Radiologe, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of combined ultrasonic BI-RADS and ultrasound elastography in discriminating between benign and malignant breast nodules.Medicine · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Sonoelastography for Breast Lesions: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Strain and Shear Wave Elastography.Journal of imaging · 2025Review
- Identification and validation of screening models for breast cancer with 3 serum miRNAs in an 11,349 samples mixed cohort.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2024Article
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Cancer Tissue In Vitro after PDT Therapy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElasticity assessment of breast lesions can also be used as an associated criterion in the B‑mode ultrasound (US) assessment for differentiation between benign or malignant lesions.
objectivesThe goal was to identify techniques available to measure US elasticity, assess the use of B‑mode BI-RADS® classification combined with elastography, and identify which artefacts influence the US elasticity result. MATERIALS AND
methodsBased on different studies and meta-analyses, clinical application in daily routine of the presented US elastography techniques will be investigated concerning the statistical performance of semi-quantitative and quantitative cut-off values to differentiate benign from malignant lesions.
resultsSupported by meta-analyses, all presented US elastography techniques improve the specificity by decreasing the B‑mode sensitivity. In the literature the semi-quantitative and quantitative cut-off values often vary considerably. The interobserver variability of strain elastography shows a fair agreement and the interobserver variability of shear wave elastography a substantial agreement.
conclusionsConsidering the limitations and artefacts of each technique, US elastography is able to enhance the true positive and true negative results. In the case of a higher B‑mode BI-RADS® classification (4b, 4c, 5) or in a high-risk situation to develop breast cancer, a large core needle biopsy should be performed despite lesion softness in elastography.
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.