SynthesisMedicine2022
Diagnostic performance of mono-exponential DWI versus diffusion kurtosis imaging in breast lesions: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in breast cancer molecular subtypes.Polish journal of radiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis meta-analysis aimed to explore the diagnostic value of diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) compared to mono-exponential diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) in the diagnosis of breast cancer.
methodsA systematic electronic literature search (up to September 2020) was conducted for published English-language studies comparing the diagnostic values of DKI and DWI for the detection of breast cancer. The data of mean kurtosis (MK), mean diffusivity (MD), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) were extracted to construct 2 × 2 contingency tables. The pooled sensitivities, specificities, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) were compared between DKI and DWI in the diagnosis of breast cancer.
resultsEight studies were finally included, with a total of 771 patients in the same population. Pooled sensitivities were 82.0% [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 78.2-85.3%] for ADC, 87.3% (95% CI, 83.9-90.1%) for MK, and 83.9% (95% CI, 80.2-87.1%) for MD. Pooled specificities were 81.1% (95% CI, 76.7-84.9%) for ADC, 85.1% (95% CI, 81.1-88.5%) for MK, and 83.2% (95% CI, 79.0-86.8%) for MD. According to the summary receiver operator characteristic curve analyses, the AUCwas 0.901 for ADC, 0.930 for MK, and 0.918 for MD (ADC vs MK, P = .353; ADC vs MD, P = .611). No notable publication bias was found, while significant heterogeneity was observed.
conclusionsAlthough DKI is feasible for identifying breast cancer, MD and MK offer similar diagnostic performance to ADC values. Thus, we recommend that DKI should not be included in the routine evaluation of breast lesions now.
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.