ArticleMedicine2021
The value of different imaging methods in the diagnosis of breast cancer: A protocol for network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.
Article in Medicine, 2021. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background: Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer in women all over the world and the second most common cause of cancer-related mortality. Imaging examination plays an important role in the diagnosis of early breast cancer. Due to different imaging principles and methods, all kinds of examinations have their advantages and disadvantages. It is particularly important for clinicians to choose these examination methods reasonably to achieve the best diagnostic effect. The objectives of this systematic review and NMA are to determine the diagnostic accuracy of imaging technologies for breast cancer and to compare the diagnostic accuracy of different index tests and to support guidelines development and clinical practice.
methods: PubMed, Embase.com, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and SinoMed will be searched to identify relevant studies up to August 31, 2021. We will include random controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, and cohort studies that evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of different imaging diagnostic methods for breast cancer. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 quality assessment tool will be used to assess the risk of bias in each study. Standard pairwise meta-analysis and NMA will be performed using STATA V.12.0, MetaDiSc 1.40, and R 3.4.1 software to compare the diagnostic efficacy of different imaging diagnostic methods. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to investigate the sources of heterogeneity.
results: The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
conclusion: This study will comprehensively evaluate the accuracy of different imaging diagnostic methods in the diagnosis of breast cancer. The results of this study will provide high-quality evidence to support clinical practice and guidelines development.
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.