ArticleBMC medical imaging2022
A comparative analysis of diagnostic values of high-frequency ultrasound and fiberoptic ductoscopy for pathologic nipple discharge.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of a clinical-bimodal nomogram to predict the malignancy of pathologic nipple discharge.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Role of immediate injection of methylene blue after fiberoptic ductoscopy in selective ductectomy for patients with pathological nipple discharge.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Application and limitations of ultrasound for the early diagnosis of thyroid cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Advances in fibreoptic ductoscopy for the diagnosis and treatment of pathologic papillary overflow.Heliyon · 2024Review
- A retrospective study of ductoscopy combined with immediate methylene blue staining in nipple discharge diseases.Scientific reports · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of high-frequency ultrasound (HFUS) and fiberoptic ductoscopy (FDS) for pathologic nipple discharge (PND).
methodsHFUS and FDS were conducted in 210 patients with PND (248 lesions) treated at our hospital. The diagnostic accuracy of these two methods was compared using pathological diagnosis as the standard.
resultsAmong 248 lesions, 16 and 15 of 16 malignant lesions were accurately diagnosed by HFUS and FDS, respectively. Of 232 benign lesions, 183 and 196 cases were accurately diagnosed by HFUS and FDS, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of HFUS in diagnosis of intraductal lesions were 84.36% (95% CI 79.26-88.39%), 60% (95% CI 23.07-92.89%), 96.03% (95% CI 96.55-99.83%), and 7.31% (95% CI 2.52-19.4%) respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of FDS in diagnosis of intraductal lesions were 86.83% (95% CI 82.00-90.52%), 100% (95% CI 56.55-100%), 100% (95% CI 98.21-100%), and 13.51% (95% CI 5.91-27.98%) respectively. Diagnostic accuracy rates of HFUS and FDS were 83.87% (208/248) and 85.08% (211/248), respectively, exhibiting no statistically differences (χ
conclusionsBoth HFUS and FDS demonstrated high diagnostic values for PND. HFUS has the advantage of non-invasive for nipple discharge with duct ectasia, exhibited good qualitative and localization diagnostic values. It is the preferred evaluation method for patients with nipple discharge. When HFUS cannot identify the cause of PND, FDS can be considered.
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.