ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Evaluation of Diagnostic Performance of Automatic Breast Volume Scanner Compared to Handheld Ultrasound on Different Breast Lesions: A Systematic Review.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Breast Cancer Screening Programs in China: Implementation, Challenges, and Future Perspectives.Korean journal of radiology · 2026Review
- When deep learning is not enough: artificial life as a supplementary tool for segmentation of ultrasound images of breast cancer.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2025Article
- Innovative integration of automated breast volume scan and ultrasound elastography for enhanced differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of automated breast volume scanning, hand-held ultrasound and molybdenum-target mammography for breast lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Gland surgery · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence-based automated breast ultrasound radiomics for breast tumor diagnosis and treatment: a narrative review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Comparative analysis of multi-zone peritumoral radiomics in breast cancer for predicting NAC response using ABVS-based deep learning models.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- A multi-centre, randomised trial for diagnostic efficacy of the automatic breast volume scanner ultrasound for breast cancer screening in China.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- 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
- Prospective assessment of breast lesions AI classification model based on ultrasound dynamic videos and ACR BI-RADS characteristics.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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the diagnostic performance of the automatic breast volume scanner (ABVS) against the handheld ultrasound (HHUS) in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions.
methodsA systematic search and review of studies involving ABVS and HHUS for breast cancer screening were performed. The search involved the data taken from Scopus, PubMed, and science direct databases and was conducted between the year 2011 to 2020. The prospective method was used in determining the inclusion and exclusion criteria while the evidence level was determined using the BI-RADS categories for diagnostic studies. In addition, the parameters of specificity, mean age, sensitivity, tumor number, and diagnostic accuracy of the ABVS and HHUS were summarized.
resultsNo systematic review or randomized controlled trial were identified in the systematic search while one cross-sectional study, eight retrospective studies, and 10 prospective studies were found. Sufficient follow-up of the subjects with benign and malignant findings were made only in 10 studies, in which only two had used ABVS and HHUS after performing mammographic screening and MRI. Analysis was made of 21 studies, which included 5448 lesions (4074 benign and 1374 malignant) taken from 6009 patients. The range of sensitivity was (0.72-1.0) for ABVS and (0.62-1.0) for HHUS; the specificity range was (0.52-0.98)% for ABVS and (0.49-0.99)% for HHUS. The accuracy range among the 11 studies was (80-99)% and (59-98)% for the HHUS and ABVS, respectively. The identified tumors had a mean size of 2.1 cm, and the detected cancers had a mean percentage of 94% (81-100)% in comparison to the non-cancer in all studies.
conclusionsThe evidence available in the literature points to the fact that the diagnostic performance of both ABVS and HHUS are similar with reference to the differentiation of malignant and benign breast lesions.
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.