Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36140571›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022

A Prospective Comparative Evaluation of Handheld Ultrasound Examination (HHUS) or Automated Ultrasound Examination (ABVS) in Women with Dense Breast.

Nicole Brunetti, Sara De Giorgis, Simona Tosto, Alessandro Garlaschi, Giuseppe Rescinito, Barbara Massa, Massimo Calabrese, Alberto Stefano Tagliafico

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nicole BrunettiRadiology Section, Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL), University of Genova, Via L.B. Alberti 2, 16132 Genoa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2487-248X
Sara De GiorgisRadiology Section, Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL), University of Genova, Via L.B. Alberti 2, 16132 Genoa, Italy.
Simona TostoDepartment of Radiology, IRCCS-Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132 Genoa, Italy.
Alessandro GarlaschiDepartment of Radiology, IRCCS-Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132 Genoa, Italy.
Giuseppe RescinitoDepartment of Radiology, IRCCS-Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132 Genoa, Italy.
Barbara MassaCyto-Histopathological Unit, IRCCS-Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132 Genoa, Italy.
Massimo CalabreseDepartment of Radiology, IRCCS-Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132 Genoa, Italy.
Alberto Stefano TagliaficoRadiology Section, Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL), University of Genova, Via L.B. Alberti 2, 16132 Genoa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1736-0697
Ospedale Policlinico San Martino · ITUniversity of Genoa · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mammography is the gold standard examination for breast cancer screening. In women with high breast density, mammography has reduced sensitivity. In these women, an additional screening option is often recommended. This study prospectively compared ABVS and HHUS in women with mammography-negative examinations and dense breasts. Materials and methods: N = 222 women were evaluated prospectively and consecutively between January 2019 and June 2019 (average age 53 years; range 39−89). McNemar’s test and ROC analysis were used with standard statistical software. We included in the study both symptomatic and asymptomatic women with dense breasts. Women included underwent both HHUS and ABVS after mammography with independent reading. Results: N = 33/222 (15%) women resulted in having breast cancer. Both ABVS and HHUS identified more cancers than standard mammography, and both HHUS and ABVS had false-positive examinations: n = 13 for HHUS and n = 12 for ABVS. We found that HHUS had better accuracy than ABVS. The AUC of the ROC was 0.788 (95% CI 0.687−0.890) for ABVS and 0.930 (95% CI 0.868−0.993) for HHUS. This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Conclusions: HHUS was more accurate in breast cancer detection than ABVS. Multicentric studies must confirm these data for supplemental imaging in women with dense breasts.

Indexed as

automated breast ultrasoundbreast cancerbreast densitymammographyultrasound

Identifiers

PMID36140571
PMCPMC9497758
OpenAlexW4296087417

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.