ArticleCancer management and research2021
A National Chinese Survey on Ultrasound Feature Interpretation and Risk Assessment of Breast Masses Under ACR BI-RADS.
Article in Cancer management and 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.
- Cell cycle regulation in cancer cells by O-GlcNAcylation.Glycoconjugate journal · 2025Review
- Bridging the skill gap in breast ultrasound: a PDCA management for standardized reporting and accurate BI-RADS categorization in postgraduate medical education.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a nomogram for discriminating between benign and malignant breast masses by conventional ultrasound and dual-mode elastography: a multicenter study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Analysis of the accuracy of ultrasound elastography and BI-RADS classification of breast masses located within the superficial fat layer of the glands.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
purposeThrough this nationwide survey on ACR BI-RADS including ultrasound images of 10 selected breast lesions, we aimed to learn about consistency in feature interpretation and assessment categories and to identify factors that might contribute to inconsistencies, thereby promoting the application of BI-RADS in China. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe survey was delivered through a self-developed website about blinded image interpretation and was released to the public through online platforms and social media. A total of 10 representative lesions were selected by an experienced radiologist to gather information about the general practice of BI-RADS lexicons and categories. The Kappa statistic, the chi-squared test, and descriptive statistics were used for data analysis.
resultsNine hundred ultrasound workers completed the questionnaire, coming from all provinces and major cities in China. They had different positions, grades of work organization, and seniority. The interrater agreement of BI-RADS features was fair to substantial (kappa value: 0.37-0.66). For BI-RADS categories, the highest agreement was observed in the typical benign group (average constituent rate = 74.78%), and generally lower agreement was observed in the typical malignant (average constituent rate = 36.03%) and suspicious groups (average constituent rate = 39.02%).
conclusionWe found inconsistencies in BI-RADS applications, providing direction for image feature research using big data. Therefore, we call for more efforts to improve the consistency of BI-RADS application and provide an evidence-based basis for identifying benign and malignant lesions by sonographic features.
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.