SynthesisJournal of ultrasound2023
Diagnostic performance of mammography and ultrasound in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of ultrasound, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- SCAR-Net-assisted ultrasound diagnosis of postoperative scars and recurrent lesions in breast cancer.iScience · 2026Article
- Early predictive value of calcification on ultrasound and mammography for pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Brain and retina in Alzheimer's disease: Pathological intersections and estimates from imaging.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Review
- Ultrasound and immunohistochemical predictors of neoadjuvant chemotherapy response in breast cancer.Translational cancer research · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Breast Ultrasonography and Cytohistopathology in Diagnosing Breast Diseases.Cureus · 2025Article
- Article
- Deep learning assisted non-invasive lymph node burden evaluation and CDK4/6i administration in luminal breast cancer.iScience · 2025Article
- Exploring the Evolution of Breast Cancer Imaging: A Review of Conventional and Emerging Modalities.Cureus · 2025Review
- Development and validation of a semi-automatic radiomics ensemble model for preoperative evaluation of breast masses in mammotome-assisted minimally invasive resection.Gland surgery · 2025Article
- Improving breast ultrasonography education: the impact of AI-based decision support on the performance of non-specialist medical professionals.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2025Article
- A multimodal machine learning model for the stratification of breast cancer risk.Nature biomedical engineering · 2025Article
- Correlation between ultrasound measurements and the expression of Her-2 and CD147 in breast cancer.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Clinical Value of Nomogram Model based on Multimodality Ultrasound Image Characteristics Differentiating Benign and Malignant Breast Masses.Current medical imaging · 2025Article
- Mammography and Breast Ultrasonography Services in Ghana, Availability, and Geographic Access.JCO global oncology · 2024Article
- [BIRADS 0 patient reclassification in a first-level of care unit].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2024Observational
- Diagnostic Value of Artificial Intelligence in Minimal Breast Lesions Based on Real-Time Dynamic Ultrasound Imaging.International journal of general medicine · 2024Article
- Human Endogenous Retroviruses in Breast Cancer: Altered Expression Pattern Implicates Divergent Roles in Carcinogenesis.Oncology · 2024Article
- AI and imaging-based cancer screening: getting ready for prime time.Nature medicine · 2023Article
- CXC ELR-Positive Chemokines as Diagnostic and Prognostic Markers for Breast Cancer Patients.Cancers · 2023Review
- Ultrasound Video-Based Radiomics Analysis for Differentiating Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of mammography (MMG) and ultrasound (US) imaging for detecting breast cancer.
methodsComprehensive searches of PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE from 2008 to 2021 were performed. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was constructed to summarize the overall test performance of MMG and US. Histopathologic analysis and/or close clinical and imaging follow-up for at least 6 months were used as golden reference.
resultsAnalysis of the studies revealed that the overall validity estimates of MMG and US in detecting breast cancer were as follows: pooled sensitivity per-patient were 0.82 (95% CI 0.76-0.87) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.71-0.91) respectively, The pooled specificities for detection of breast cancer using MMG, and US were 0.84 (95% CI 0.73-0.92) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.74-0.91) respectively. AUC of MMG, and US were 0.8933 and 0.8310 respectively. Pooled sensitivity and specificity per-lesion was 76% (95% CI 0.62-0.86) and 82% (95% CI 0.66-0.91) for MMG and 94% (95% CI 0.87-0.97) and 84% (95% CI 0.74-0.91) for US.
conclusionsThe meta-analysis found that, US and MMG has similar diagnostic performance in detecting breast cancer on per-patient basis after corrected threshold effect. However, on a per-lesion basis US was found to have a better diagnostic accuracy than MMG.
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.