Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33544650›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of radiology2021

Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of pathologic nipple discharge: indications and imaging findings.

Naziya Samreen, Laura B Madsen, Celin Chacko, Samantha L Heller

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Naziya SamreenNew York University Long Island Division, Long Island, NY, USA.
Laura B MadsenNYU Winthrop Hospital, Mineola, NY, USA.
Celin ChackoNew York University Long Island Division, Long Island, NY, USA.
Samantha L HellerNew York University, Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
New York University · USLong Island University · USWinthrop-University Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pathologic nipple discharge (PND) is typically unilateral, spontaneous, involves a single duct, and is serous or bloody in appearance. In patients with PND, breast MRI can be helpful as an additional diagnostic tool when conventional imaging with mammogram and ultrasound are negative. MRI is able to detect the etiology of nipple discharge in 56-61% of cases when initial imaging with mammogram and ultrasound are negative. Advantages to using MRI in evaluation of PND include good visualization of the retroareolar breast and better evaluation of posterior lesions which may not be well evaluated on mammograms and galactograms. It is also less invasive compared to central duct excision. Papillomas and nipple adenomas are benign breast masses that can cause PND and are well visualized on MRI. Ductal ectasia, and infectious etiologies such as mastitis, abscess, and fistulas are additional benign causes of PND that are well evaluated with MRI. MRI is also excellent for evaluation of malignant causes of PND including Paget's disease, ductal carcinoma

Indexed as

Breast DiseasesFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNipple DischargeNipples

Identifiers

PMID33544650
PMCPMC8010557
OpenAlexW3128259389

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.