ArticleCureus2022
The Efficacy of Clinical Breast Exams and Breast Self-Exams in Detecting Malignancy or Positive Ultrasound Findings.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Awareness regarding breast cancer amongst women in Pakistan: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- A Culturally Tailored mHealth App (VCheck) to Support Breast Self-Examination Among Thai Women: Development and Formative Evaluation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- MassSeg-Framework: A Breast Mass Detection and Segmentation Framework Based on Deep Learning and an Active Contour Model.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Oxidative stress and antioxidants in breast cancer: a double-edged sword.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- The impact of educational interventions on breast self-examination practice, knowledge, and beliefs among women: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of public health research · 2026Review
- In Search of Ideal Solutions for Cancer Diagnosis: From Conventional Methods to Protein Biomarkers in Liquid Biopsy.Proteomes · 2025Review
- Exploring the learning experience of nursing students volunteering in a breast cancer campaign as an extracurricular activity.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Factors associated with the uptake of clinical breast examination for early detection of breast cancer: interaction analysis of the 2022 Tanzania Demographic and Health Survey and Malaria Indicator Survey.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- Level of Awareness, Screening Practices, and Self-Detection Among Breast Cancer Patients.European journal of breast health · 2025Article
- Multifaceted role of erlotinib in various cancer: nanotechnology intervention, patent landscape, and advancements in clinical trials.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2024Review
- Assessing breast self-examination knowledge and practices among women in Iraq: A cross-sectional study.Health science reports · 2024Article
- Identify risk factors affecting participation of Turkish women in mammography screening for breast cancer prevention.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2024Article
- Article
- Clinical outcomes of screening and diagnostic mammography in a limited resource healthcare system.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Assessing Awareness, Attitude, and Practices of Breast Cancer Screening and Prevention Among General Public and Physicians in Pakistan: A Nation With the Highest Breast Cancer Incidence in Asia.International journal of breast cancer · 2024Article
- Multi-level barriers to early detection of breast cancer among rural midlife women in Tanzania: A qualitative case study.PloS one · 2024Article
- Use of Epic Electronic Health Record System for Health Care Research: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Article
- Breast screening practices of 35-65 years old women - A cross-sectional survey in Alappuzha, Kerala, India.Journal of education and health promotion · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective A breast exam is a low-risk, low-cost method for early detection, which is crucial for improved mortality. However, clinical breast exams (CBE) and breast self-exams (BSEs) remain controversial with unclear guidelines. This study analyzes the efficacy of these two exam types in evaluating palpable breast masses. Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study included 2019 medical records from Epic of women with breast lumps. Patient demographics, provider types, and breast exam types were recorded. Primary outcomes were detection of cancer and positive ultrasound finding. Fisher's exact tests and two-sample t-tests determined the statistical significance of the association between the outcomes and categorical and continuous variables. Results Of 462 breast masses, 69 demonstrated positive ultrasound findings, with 26 of those yielding cancer; 96% of cancers and 81% of ultrasound findings resulted from patient-identified lumps. Of provider-identified lumps, 100% of cancers and 92.3% of positive ultrasound findings were diagnosed by MDs (doctors of medicine) rather than midlevel providers. There was no statistically significant difference in identifying cancer or positive ultrasound finding between CBEs and BSEs (p = 0.3709 and p = 0.1556). Conclusion Despite no difference between CBEs and BSEs in identifying cancer or positive ultrasound finding, 25 of the 26 breast cancers were initially detected by patients, while only one of 26 was detected by CBE. BSEs detect breast cancers. Although some guidelines encourage CBEs over self-exams, not all CBEs are equal. Key message There is no significant difference between CBEs and BSEs in identifying cancer or positive ultrasound finding. The majority of cancers were initially identified by patients. BSEs detect breast cancers and women should continue performing them. Not all CBEs are equal. CBEs by MDs, especially women health specialists, are generally more effective than those by midlevel providers.
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.