ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Comparison of Linear and Convex-Array Transducers in Assessing the Enhancement Characteristics of Suspicious Breast Lesions at Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS).
Article 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of Renal Transplant Perfusion by Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound after Switch from Calcineurin Inhibitor to Belatacept: A Pilot Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the observer agreement in assessing the enhancement pattern of suspicious breast lesions with contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) using high and low frequency transducers. Methods: This prospective study included 70 patients with suspicious breast lesions detected at mammography and/or ultrasound and classified according to the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) in 4A, 4B, 4C, or 5, who underwent CEUS examinations between October 2020 and August 2021. Results: Participants’ ages ranged from 28 to 83 years (48.5 + 6.36, mean age + SD). We obtained a substantial agreement for the first reader (kappa = 0.614, p < 0.001) and a perfect agreement for the second and third reader (kappa = 1, p < 0.001) between the two transducers for the uptake pattern. A moderate agreement for the second and third reader (kappa = 0.517 and 0.538, respectively, p < 0.001) and only a fair agreement (kappa = 0.320, p < 0.001) in the case of the first reader for the perilesional enhancement was observed. We obtained an excellent inter-observer agreement (Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient = 0.960, p < 0.001) for the degree of enhancement, a good inter-observer agreement for the uptake pattern and perilesional enhancement (Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient = 0.831 and 0.853, respectively, p < 0.001), and a good and acceptable inter-observer agreement for internal homogeneity, perfusion defects and margins of the lesions (Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient = 0.703, 0.703 and 0.792, respectively, p < 0.001) concerning the evaluation of breast lesions with the linear-array transducer. Conclusions: The evaluation of suspicious breast lesions by three experts with high-frequency linear-array transducer and low-frequency convex-array transducer was comparable in terms of uptake pattern and perilesional enhancement. The agreement regarding the evaluation of the degree of enhancement, the internal homogeneity, and the perfusion defects varied between fair and substantial. For all CEUS characteristics, the inter-observer agreement was superior for linear-array transducer, which leads to more a homogeneous and reproducible interpretation.
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.