ArticleGland surgery2023
Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound combined with shear wave elastography in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Gland surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endometrial elasticity in infertile women assessed by transvaginal shear wave elastography.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Ultrasound features and clinicopathologic correlations of breast adenoid cystic carcinoma: a retrospective observational study.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- Predicting axillary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer via quantitative analysis of VueBox ultrasound contrast-enhanced imaging combined with multimodal feature fusion.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Challenges and Modern Therapeutic Strategies in Giant Cell Arteritis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Omitting sentinel lymph node biopsy in early breast cancer: too bold or the future?Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 2025Article
- Sonoelastography - A new paradigm in the characterization of breast lesions.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- The benefits of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the differential diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and shear-wave elastography for small breast nodules.PeerJ · 2024Article
- Diagnostic value of multimodal ultrasound for breast cancer and prediction of sentinel lymph node metastases.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), shear wave elastography (SWE) and their combination in the diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions have not been systematically evaluated. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of CEUS combined with SWE in benign and malignant breast lesions. Methods: We searched six electronic databases for literature to evaluate the value of CEUS combined with SWE in the diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions from inception to May 2023. Review Manager 5.4 (Cochrane), Meta-DiSc 1.4, and Stata 14.0 (StataCorp) were used for meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the curve (AUC) were calculated to evaluate the diagnostic performance. Results: Ultimately, 17 studies were analyzed including 1,962 lesions in total. The overall quality of the included literature was acceptable, and no significant publication bias was found among the included studies. The pooled diagnostic performance measures for CEUS were as follows: SEN: 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.84-0.88], SPE: 0.78 (95% CI: 0.75-0.80), PLR: 4.10 (95% CI: 2.86-5.90), NLR: 0.20 (95% CI: 0.15-0.25), DOR: 23.68 (95% CI: 16.77-33.44), and AUC: 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.93); while, for SWE, SEN: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.81-0.86), SPE: 0.81 (95% CI: 0.78-0.83), PLR: 4.36 (95% CI: 3.18-5.97), NLR: 0.22 (95% CI: 0.17-0.29), DOR: 23.13 (95% CI: 14.70-36.40), and AUC: 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.92). The measures for the pooled diagnostic performance of CEUS combined with SWE were as follows: SEN: 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90-0.94), SPE: 0.87 (95% CI: 0.85-0.89), PLR: 7.10 (95% CI: 5.24-9.61), NLR: 0.11 (95% CI: 0.07-0.16), DOR: 83.51 (95% CI: 49.67-140.39), and AUC: 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.98). There was no statistically significant difference in SEN, SPE, and accuracy (ACC) between CEUS and SWE (P>0.05), but they were significantly lower than those of CEUS combined with SWE (P<0.001). Conclusions: The diagnostic performance of CEUS combined with SWE is higher than that of using CEUS or SWE alone and can further improve the diagnosis of breast lesions.
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.