ArticleCureus2020
Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy of Clinical and Radiological Measures in Hand Soft-Tissue Masses.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Imaging modalities are imperative to aid in diagnosing hand soft-tissue tumors. Limited insight is available into the diagnostic accuracy of history and physical examination in comparison to radiological diagnosis. Methods In this retrospective analysis, data of patients with hand soft-tissue tumors that were surgically treated and diagnosed through biopsy were extracted; taking this as a reference, the sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values and likelihood ratios of the clinical approach and radiological tools were contrasted against each other. Results Data of a total of 34 patients were revised in this study. With a mean age of 40.1 years, the most common anatomical area of the hand to be affected by the tumors was the index (n = 7, (18.9%); ganglion cysts were the most common tumor (n = 9, 26.5%) and magnetic resonance imaging was the most commonly used imaging modality (n = 24, 70.6%). Clinical diagnosis scored a sensitivity and specificity of 44.4% and 100% in ganglion cysts and 62.5% and 86.2% in giant cell tumors in contrast to the sensitivity and specificity of 66.7% and 100% for ganglion cysts and 50% and 90% for giant cell tumors scored by radiological modalities. Conclusion Clinical diagnosis could be non-inferior to radiological diagnosis, yet radiological examination remains a valuable adjunct to clinical examination. Larger scale, prospective studies are required before generalizing our results.
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.