ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2021
Diagnostic performance of mammography and magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating mammographically visible breast masses.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preoperative Breast MRI and Histopathology in Breast Cancer: Concordance, Challenges and Emerging Role of CEM and mpMRI.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation of Nonmass Enhancement Contiguous with Malignant Index Breast Cancer Masses at Preoperative Breast MRI.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2024Article
- Rethinking Breast Cancer Diagnosis through Deep Learning Based Image Recognition.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe compared the diagnostic values of mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for evaluating breast masses.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed mammography, MRI, and histopathological data for 377 patients with breast masses on mammography, including 73 benign and 304 malignant masses.
resultsThe sensitivities and negative predictive values (NPVs) were significantly higher for MRI compared with mammography for detecting breast cancer (98.4% vs. 89.8% and 87.8% vs. 46.6%, respectively). The specificity and positive predictive values (PPV) were similar for both techniques. Compared with mammography alone, mammography plus MRI improved the specificity (67.1% vs. 37.0%) and PPV (91.8% vs. 85.6%), but there was no significant difference in sensitivity or NPV. Compared with MRI alone, the combination significantly improved the specificity (67.1% vs. 49.3%), but the sensitivity (88.5% vs. 98.4%) and NPV (58.3% vs. 87.8%) were reduced, and the PPV was similar in both groups. There was no significant difference between mammography and MRI in terms of sensitivity or specificity among 81 patients with breast masses with calcification.
conclusionBreast MRI improved the sensitivity and NPV for breast cancer detection. Combining MRI and mammography improved the specificity and PPV, but MRI offered no advantage in patients with breast masses with calcification.
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.