Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36873302›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oncology2022

Fat necrosis: A consultant's conundrum.

Jinita Majithia, Purvi Haria, Palak Popat, Aparna Katdare, Sonal Chouhan, Kunal Bharat Gala, Suyash Kulkarni, Meenakshi Thakur

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Molecular imaging and radionuclide therapy · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Jinita MajithiaRadiology Department, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Purvi HariaRadiology Department, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Palak PopatRadiology Department, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Aparna KatdareRadiology Department, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Sonal ChouhanRadiology Department, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Kunal Bharat GalaRadiology Department, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Suyash KulkarniRadiology Department, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Meenakshi ThakurRadiology Department, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Tata Memorial Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fat necrosis of the breast is a benign non-suppurative inflammation of the adipose tissue and often mimics breast cancers, posing a diagnostic challenge for the clinician and radiologist. It has a myriad of appearances on different imaging techniques, ranging from the pathognomic oil cyst and benign dystrophic calcifications to indeterminate focal asymmetries, architectural distortions, and masses. A combination of different modalities can assist a radiologist in reaching a logical conclusion to avoid unnecessary interventions. The aim of this review article was to provide a comprehensive literature on the various imaging appearances of fat necrosis in the breast. Although a purely benign entity, the imaging appearances on mammography, contrast-enhanced mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging can be quite misleading, especially in post-therapy breasts. The purpose is to provide a comprehensive and all-inclusive review on fat necrosis with a proposed algorithm allowing a systematic approach to diagnosis.

Indexed as

breast imagingfat necrosismammographyradiologyultrasonography

Identifiers

PMID36873302
PMCPMC9978799
OpenAlexW4321087945

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.