ReviewJournal of medical ultrasonics (2001)2023
Ultrasound diagnosis of non-mass MRI-detected lesions.
Review in Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Labeled Numerical Phantom of Abdominal Wall for Wave-Physics-Based Ultrasound Imaging: Applications to Image Reconstruction.IEEE transactions on ultrasonics · 2026Article
- Ductal abnormalities as primary findings on breast ultrasonography: a literature review and proposed classification.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-detected lesions are often category 2 or 3 lesions on initial ultrasound examination. In addition, in the case of new non-mass lesions detected on MRI, one would expect to find lesions with ductal dilatation with minimal secretory accumulation, single short lesions with ductal dilatation, cyst-like lesions less than 5 mm in size, mammary gland-like lesions less than 8 mm in size, and very indistinct lesions. Detection is expected to be even more difficult. Currently, there are no clear uniform criteria for the indication of second-look ultrasonography (US) for MRI-detected lesions, so it is not possible to make a general comparison, but recent studies have indicated that the ratio of mass to non-mass MRI-detected lesions is 7:3. And it has been pointed out that the percentage of malignancy is about 30% for each. Before about 2012, the US detection rate was about 70%, and MRI-guided biopsies of undetected lesions showed a small percentage of malignant lesions. Therefore, some observers believe that lesions not detected on US should be followed up, while others believe that MRI-guided biopsy should be performed. Recently, however, the use of surrounding anatomical structures as landmarks for second-look US has increased the detection rate to as high as 87-99%, and the percentage of malignancy remains the same. In addition, recent surveillance of high-risk breast cancer requires careful management of MRI-detected lesions. In this review, we will discuss the literature on MRI-detected lesions and describe ultrasound techniques to accurately detect small lesions and reliably reveal pale lesions based on their structural differences from their surroundings.
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.