ArticleCureus2021
Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy System: No Innovation Without Evaluation.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ability of MRI Breast to Predict Pathologic Complete Response Following Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy in Patients with Breast Cancer.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2026Review
- Diffuse reflectance spectroscopy for enhanced diagnostic precision in breast cancer.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Variation in Pathological Appearance Across Repeated Sampling from Probably Benign Breast Lesions.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Histopathological Analysis of Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy in Relation to Microcalcification Findings on Mammography: A Pictorial Review.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Ultrasound-Guided Vacuum-Assisted Excision (VAE) in Breast Lesion Management: An Experimental Comparative Study of Two Different VAE Devices Across Various Aspiration Levels and Window Sizes.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB) has recently been gaining more popularity as a modality to reach the final diagnosis, especially in indeterminate breast lesions, resulting in a decreased number of surgical interventions and unnecessary follow-ups. Objective While our primary aim was to look into the outcomes of the VABB technique, our secondary aim was to assess the impact of the method on changes in patients' management. Patients and methods This study was a retrospective database analysis of vacuum-assisted biopsies (VABs) carried out at our breast unit during the period between January 2011 and January 2018. All our cases were image-guided; the caliber of vacuum-assisted needles used was 8 gauge (G) and 11 G. Patient demographics, lesion characteristics, and outcomes were retrieved from patients' notes and the hospital database. Results A total of 122 female patients were included in the analysis, out of whom 41.8% (51 patients) were screen-detected, and 58.1% (71 patients) were symptomatic presentations. The mean lesion size on imaging was 14.8 mm (SD: 12.6); 50% (61 patients) had stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (SVAB), and 50% (61 patients) had ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (US-VAB). Post-procedure histology was upgraded in 19.6% (24 patients), downgraded in 18.8% (23 patients), and remained unchanged in 61.4% (75 patients). Conclusion VABB is a safe and efficient procedure for the diagnosis and management of indeterminate and suspicious breast lesions. It provides an adequate amount of tissue, which can help in upgrading or downgrading histopathologically diagnosed patients, thereby decreasing the need for surgery.
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.