Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34646704›Full record

ArticleCureus2021

Practical Utility of Diagnostic Clinical Breast Examination in the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer.

Muberra Turan, Fisun Sozen, Muzaffer G Eminsoy, Tugce Sencelikel, Altug Kut, Sedat Yildirim, Ergun Oksuz

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 41% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Muberra TuranFamily Medicine, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, TUR.
Fisun SozenFamily Medicine, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, TUR.
Muzaffer G EminsoyFamily Medicine, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, TUR.
Tugce SencelikelBiostatistics, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, TUR.
Altug KutFamily Medicine, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, TUR.
Sedat YildirimGeneral Surgery, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, TUR.
Ergun OksuzFamily Medicine, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, TUR.
Başkent University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of physician-performed diagnostic clinical breast examination (DCBE) for the diagnosis of breast cancer in clinical practice and to determine the rates of breast cancer diagnosed with DCBE compared to the results of breast ultrasonography (US), mammography (MG), and histopathology. Methods In the retrospective cohort study, the files of female patients diagnosed with breast cancer and admitted to the general surgery outpatient clinics of a university hospital over a 10-year period (2011-2021) were examined. Patients with complete DCBE findings in their files were identified and analyzed (n = 1,091). The examinations of the patients were performed by general surgery specialists with 5-22 years of experience and by radiologists with 4-15 years of experience. Results The mean age of breast cancer diagnosis of the patients was 55.1 ± 13.5 years. While the sensitivity of DCBE was found to be 88.9%, MG sensitivity was 89.8% and breast US sensitivity was 95.1%. Cancer was detected by MG, breast US, and DCBE in 47.9% (n = 523), by breast US and DCBE in 38.9% (n = 424), by MG and breast US in 5.6% (n = 61), by DCBE alone in 3.6% (n = 39), by MG and DCBE in 2.4% (n = 26), and by breast US alone in 1.6% (n = 18). Early-stage breast cancer (p = 0.00) consisted of 73.2% (n = 383) of cancers detected with DCBE, breast US and MG, 74.6% (n = 316) of cancers detected with DCBE and breast US, 93.4% of cancers detected with breast US and MG (n = 57), 92.3% (n = 24) of cancers detected with DCBE and MG, 94.4% (n = 17) of cancers detected with breast US alone, and 69.2% of cancers detected with DCBE alone (n = 27). Conclusions CBE still maintains its importance in societies where screening participation and awareness of breast cancer are low. A breast cancer diagnosis is often done after a complaint of a palpable mass in the breast, and only then are more advanced-stage breast cancers are seen. CBE is among the important diagnostic methods preventing breast cancer from being overlooked, especially in places where health resources are limited.

Indexed as

breast diseasesbreast neoplasmsbreast ultrasonographymammographyphysical examination

Identifiers

PMID34646704
PMCPMC8487246
OpenAlexW3198481762

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.