SynthesisJCO global oncology2023
Can the Clinical Utility of iBreastExam, a Novel Device, Aid in Optimizing Breast Cancer Diagnosis? A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in JCO global oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection of Breast Lesions Utilizing iBreast Exam: A Pilot Study Comparison with Clinical Breast Exam.Cancers · 2026Article
- TheFrontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- In Search of Ideal Solutions for Cancer Diagnosis: From Conventional Methods to Protein Biomarkers in Liquid Biopsy.Proteomes · 2025Review
- Article
- Thermal Characterization and Preclinical Feasibility Verification of an Accessible, Carbon Dioxide-Based Cryotherapy System.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA portable, cost-effective, easy-to-use, hand-held Intelligent Breast Exam (iBE), which is a wireless, radiation-free device, may be a valuable screening tool in resource-limited settings. While multiple studies evaluating the use of iBE have been conducted worldwide, there are no cumulative studies evaluating the iBE's performance. Therefore this review aims to determine the clinical utility and applicability of iBE compared with clinical breast examinations, ultrasound, and mammography and discuss its strengths and weaknesses when performing breast-cancer screening.
methodsA systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Four electronic databases were searched: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar.
resultsThe review included 11 studies with a total sample size of 16,052 breasts. The mean age ranged from 42 to 58 years. The sensitivity and specificity of the iBE ranged from 34.3% to 86% and 59% to 94%, respectively. For malignant lesions, iBE demonstrated a moderate to higher diagnostic capacity ranging from 57% to 93% and could identify tumor sizes spanning from 0.5 cm to 9 cm.
conclusionOur findings underscore the potential clinical utility and applicability of iBE as a prescreening and triaging tool, which may aid in reducing the burden of patients undergoing diagnostic imaging in lower- and middle-income countries. Furthermore, iBE has shown to diagnose cancers as small as 0.5 cm, which can be a boon in early detection and reduce mortality rates. However, the encouraging results of this systematic review should be interpreted with caution because of the device's low sensitivity and high false-positive rates.
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.