ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2021
Application of a second opinion ultrasound in Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 4A cases: can immediate biopsy be avoided?
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dynamic anatomical ultrasound assessment for breast lesions: a prospective study of diagnostic performance.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2026Article
- Novel study on the prediction of BI-RADS 4A positive lesions in mammography using deep learning technology and clinical factors.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Second-opinion interpretation of outside facility general ultrasound studies: rate of discrepancies and management change.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Review
- A deep learning-based diagnostic pattern for ultrasound breast imaging: can it reduce unnecessary biopsy?Gland surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe probability of malignancy in women who are diagnosed with a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4A score is low. Application of a second opinion ultrasound (SOUS), which is low in cost and minimally invasive, may lower the biopsy rate for patients who fall into this category. This study aimed to apply SOUS to patients with a BI-RADS score of 4A and predict the pathological results of a biopsy.
methodsOne hundred seventy-eight patients were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to screen for predictive factors that are associated with malignancy. Categorical alteration of downgraded, unchanged, or upgraded was made after SOUS results. Changes in category were compared with biopsies to determine their predictive value of benignancy or malignancy.
resultsIndependent factors associated with malignancy were age (>50 years), tumor size (≥20 mm), margin (not circumscribed), orientation (not parallel), and peripheral location, and an upgraded categorical alteration from SOUS. Downgraded categorical alterations were associated with benignancy.
conclusionsIn BI-RADS 4A cases, a biopsy is recommended when independent factors are associated with malignancy. A downgraded result from an SOUS examination is a protective factor, supporting the likelihood of benignancy in these patients.
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.