ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2021
Dependability of Automated Breast Ultrasound (ABUS) in Assessing Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Category and Size of Malignant Breast Lesions Compared with Handheld Ultrasound (HHUS) and Mammography (MG).
Article in International journal of general medicine, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Study on ABUS Applicability for Rural Women With Low Health Resources in China-Large-Scale Population, Non-Opportunistic Screening.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2025Article
- Enhanced Detection of Suspicious Breast Lesions: A Comparative Study of Full-Field Digital Mammography and Automated Breast Ultrasound in 117 Patients with Core Needle Biopsy.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Prototype Handheld Ultrasound According to the Fifth Edition of BI-RADS for Breast Ultrasound Compared with Automated Breast Ultrasound among Females with Positive Lumps.Diagnostics (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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the dependability of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) compared with handheld ultrasound (HHUS) and mammography (MG) on the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category and size assessment of malignant breast lesions. PATIENTS AND
methodsA total of 344 confirmed malignant lesions were recruited. All participants underwent MG, HHUS, and ABUS examinations. Agreements on the BI-RADS category were evaluated. Lesion size assessed using the three methods was compared with the size of the pathological result as the control. Regarding the four major molecular subtypes, correlation coefficients between size on imaging and pathology were also evaluated.
resultsThe agreement between ABUS and HHUS on the BI-RADS category was 86.63% (kappa = 0.77), whereas it was 32.22% (kappa = 0.10) between ABUS and MG. Imaging lesion size compared to pathologic lesion size was assessed correctly in 36.92%/52.91% (ABUS), 33.14%/48.84% (HHUS) and 33.44%/43.87% (MG), with the threshold of 3 mm/5 mm, respectively. The correlation coefficient of size of ABUS-Pathology (0.75, Spearman) was statistically higher than that of the MG-Pathology (0.58, Spearman) with P < 0.01, but not different from that of the HHUS-Pathology (0.74, Spearman) with P > 0.05. The correlation coefficient of ABUS-Pathology was statistically higher than that of MG-Pathology in the triple-negative subtype, luminal B subtype, and luminal A subtype (
conclusionThe agreement between ABUS and HHUS in the BI-RADS category was good, whereas that between ABUS and MG was poor. ABUS and HHUS allowed a more accurate assessment of malignant tumor size compared to MG.
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.