ArticleCaspian journal of internal medicine2021
Accuracy of mammography and ultrasonography and their BI-RADS in detection of breast malignancy.
Article in Caspian journal of internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) enumeration and machine-learning based diagnostic biomarkers for breast cancer detection.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Deep Learning Enables Fast and Accurate Quantification of MRI-Guided Near-Infrared Spectral Tomography for Breast Cancer Diagnosis.IEEE transactions on medical imaging · 2025Article
- Stratifying Breast Lesion Risk Using BI-RADS: A Correlative Study of Imaging and Histopathology.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Context-guided segmentation for histopathologic cancer segmentation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Characterization of Indeterminate Breast Lesions Based on Pressure Estimates by Noninvasive 3D Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound.Ultrasound in medicine & biology · 2024Article
- Exploring Dense Breast Density in Mammography: A Comparative Analysis of Breast Cancer Risk.Cureus · 2024Article
- The Accuracy of Breast Cancer Diagnostic Tools.Cureus · 2024Article
- A Deep Learning Decision Support Tool to Improve Risk Stratification and Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies in BI-RADS 4 Mammograms.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2023Article
- Extensive review on breast cancer its etiology, progression, prognostic markers, and treatment.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2023Review
- A comparative study on the features of breast sclerosing adenosis and invasive ductal carcinoma via ultrasound and establishment of a predictive nomogram.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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of mammography and ultrasonography and their breast imaging-reporting and data system (BI-RADS) classification versus breast core needle biopsy (CNB) findings in distinguishing the breast masses.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted during 2016-2018 on female patients who were referred to a radiology center in Babol, northern Iran, for routine screening and/or for CNB. Patients underwent sonography and mammography by a senior radiologist. The breast lesions were also evaluated according to BI-RADS classification. CNB was performed on the breast masses by the same radiologist and pathological procedures were performed by an expert pathologist. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data.
resultsIn total, 213 breast masses were finally assessed, of which 107 (50.2 %) masses were benign and 106 (49.8 %) masses were malignant. The sensitivity for mammography and ultrasound alone was 72.6% and 68.9%, respectively. This rate for combined mammography and ultrasound was 84.9%. About BI-RADS classification, 28 masses were classified as BI-RADS 3, 99 as BI-RADS 4A, 4 as BI-RADS 4B, 18 as BI-RADS 4C, and 64 as BI-RADS 5. BI-RADS 4A had the highest sensitivity (70.1%) among BI-RADS categories. The highest specificity pertained to BI-RADS 3 and 5 (100%) among BI-RADS categories. Also, the highest accuracy was related to BI-RADS 5 (80.3%).
conclusionThe results of the present study showed that combined mammography and ultrasound had a higher rate of accuracy than mammography or ultrasound alone. Furthermore, the imaging methods BI-RADS classification had an acceptable positive predictive value.
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.