ArticleSkeletal radiology2021
The diagnostic performance of conventional ultrasound and strain elastography in malignant soft tissue tumors.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Elastosonography in the Differential Diagnosis of Musculoskeletal Soft Tissue Tumors: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Multiparametric Ultrasound in the Differential Diagnosis of Soft Tissue Tumors: A Comprehensive Review.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Practical approach to ultrasound of soft tissue tumors and the added value of MRI: how I do it.Journal of ultrasonography · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the diagnostic value of conventional ultrasound (US) and strain elastography (SE) in malignant soft tissue tumors.
methodA total of 83 soft tissue masses were included prospectively. US and SE imaging were performed at the same time. Two observers assessed the B mode, color Doppler, elastic scores (ES), strain ratio (SR), and SE size to B mode size (EI/B) ratio and compared the consistency of the data between the observers. According to the pathological diagnosis of resection, the cases were divided into malignant and nonmalignant groups. The diagnostic value of conventional US and SE in the prediction of malignant soft tissue tumors was assessed.
resultsThe pathology results divided cases into 36 malignant lesions and 47 nonmalignant lesions. There was no statistically significant difference in gender, location, maximum diameter, echo, tail sign, cystic component, Doppler scores, or SR between the two groups (p > 0.05). However, significant differences between the two groups were found in age, depth, heterogeneity, edge, ES, and EI/B (p < 0.05). The biggest area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (0.934) was the combination model of age, heterogeneity, edge, ES, and EI/B, and the sensitivity and specificity were 0.861 and 0.957, respectively.
conclusionsConventional US and SE are significant for the diagnosis of malignant soft tissue tumors, and SE can be used as a complementary technique to the characterization of STTs using conventional US.
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.