ArticleRevista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia2021
Comparison of Automated Breast Ultrasound and Hand-Held Breast Ultrasound in the Screening of Dense Breasts.
Article in Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Supplemental Screening as an Adjunct to Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening in People With Dense Breasts: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2023Pooled it
- ABUS-based glandular tissue component classification for breast cancer risk prediction in Chinese women with dense breasts: a retrospective study.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Construction of an ultrasound feature-based diagnostic model for predicting triple-negative breast cancer using 108 machine learning algorithm combinations.Journal of clinical imaging science · 2026Article
- Adjunct Automated Breast Ultrasound in Mammographic Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of imaging · 2025Review
- A dual-core driven hybrid radiomics integrates multiple views of greyscale ultrasound image for the early management from diagnosis to biopsy suggestion of BI-RADS 4 breast lesions: a prospective multicenter study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025Article
- Implementation of an automated breast ultrasound system in an academic radiology department: Lesson learned in the first three years.European journal of radiology open · 2025Article
- New progress in imaging diagnosis and immunotherapy of breast cancer.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Evaluating the Role of Breast Ultrasound in Early Detection of Breast Cancer in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Comparison of medical image interpretation time between conventional and automated methods of breast ultrasound.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2024Article
- The Automation of Breast Ultrasonography and the Medical Time Dedicated to the Method.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2023Review
- Evaluation of artificial intelligent breast ultrasound on lesion detection and characterization compared with hand-held ultrasound in asymptomatic women.Frontiers in oncology · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare hand-held breast ultrasound (HHBUS) and automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) as screening tool for cancer.
methodsA cross-sectional study in patients with mammographically dense breasts was conducted, and both HHBUS and ABUS were performed. Hand-held breast ultrasound was acquired by radiologists and ABUS by mammography technicians and analyzed by breast radiologists. We evaluated the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification of the exam and of the lesion, as well as the amount of time required to perform and read each exam. The statistical analysis employed was measures of central tendency and dispersion, frequencies, Student t test, and a univariate logistic regression, through the odds ratio and its respective 95% confidence interval, and with
resultsA total of 440 patients were evaluated. Regarding lesions, HHBUS detected 15 (7.7%) BI-RADS 2, 175 (89.3%) BI-RADS 3, and 6 (3%) BI-RADS 4, with 3 being confirmed by biopsy as invasive ductal carcinomas (IDCs), and 3 false-positives. Automated breast ultrasound identified 12 (12.9%) BI-RADS 2, 75 (80.7%) BI-RADS 3, and 6 (6.4%) BI-RADS 4, including 3 lesions detected by HHBUS and confirmed as IDCs, in addition to 1 invasive lobular carcinoma and 2 high-risk lesions not detected by HHBUS. The amount of time required for the radiologist to read the ABUS was statistically inferior compared with the time required to read the HHBUS (
conclusionCompared with HHBUS, ABUS allowed adequate sonographic study in supplemental screening for breast cancer in heterogeneously dense and extremely dense breasts.
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.