ArticleCureus2023
The Implementation of Diagnostic Assessment in Breast Lump Cases: A Cross-Sectional Study in Sragen, Indonesia.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Triple assessment, consisting of clinical breast examination, breast imaging, and fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB), is the gold standard for breast lump diagnosis to avoid diagnostic errors. However, current diagnostic practices for breast lump cases in Indonesia are widely variable and evidence for triple assessment implementation is lacking. We aimed to explore the implementation of diagnostic assessments in breast lump cases, its influencing factors, and its association with diagnostic error. Methods This cross-sectional study consecutively recruited 364 females with breast lumps who underwent surgery in Soehadi Prijonegoro Public Hospital, Sragen, Indonesia. Data were retrospectively collected from patient's medical records. Diagnostic assessments were classified as single assessment with clinical breast examination, double assessment with clinical breast examination and breast ultrasonography (USG) or fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB), and triple assessment. Diagnostic error was defined as a discrepancy between pre- and post-surgery diagnosis or repeated surgery without neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Factors associated with diagnostic assessment implementation, diagnostic error, and repeated surgery were analyzed using the chi-square test. Results The choice of diagnostic assessment was influenced by patients' age and health insurance (p<0.001). Triple assessment was only implemented in 21 (5.8%) breast lump cases. It was more frequently applied in patients ≥40 years (57.1%) and patients with contributory health insurance (76.2%). Diagnostic errors were observed in 84 cases (23.1%) and 47 patients out of them (47%) experienced repeated surgery. The implementation of diagnostic assessments was not associated with diagnostic error (p=0.257) but was significantly associated with repeated surgery in breast cancer (p<0.001). Repeated surgery rates were significantly lowered in cases receiving double assessment with FNAB (p<0.001). Conclusions The implementation of triple assessment in the local setting was very low. The choice of diagnostic assessment was influenced by patients' age and health insurance. Further, double assessment applying clinical breast examination and FNAB significantly decreased repeated surgery rates and thus may serve as an alternative to triple assessment in the limited resource setting.
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.