ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2024
Comparative analysis of automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) combined with conventional hand-held ultrasound and mammography in female breast cancer detection.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
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 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective and background: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic value of an automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) combined with conventional hand-held ultrasound and mammography in detecting female breast cancer. Early detection is vital in improving patient outcomes for this prevalent disease. Methods: Seventy-eight suspicious breast lesions from 60 patients were examined between August 2019 and July 2020. Each patient underwent ABVS, conventional hand-held ultrasound, and mammography. Diagnostic values, including coincidence rate, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, were calculated using histopathology results as the "gold standard." Results: Histopathology confirmed 55 malignant (70.51%) and 23 benign lesions (29.48%). ABVS combined with conventional hand-held ultrasound identified 56 malignant (52 confirmed, 4 benign) and 22 benign nodules (3 confirmed, 19 benign). Mammography detected 48 malignant (45 confirmed, 3 benign) and 30 benign nodules (10 confirmed, 20 benign). ABVS combined with conventional hand-held ultrasound had a sensitivity of 94.5%, specificity of 82.6%, positive predictive value of 92.9%, and negative predictive value of 86.4%. Mammography showed a sensitivity of 81.8%, specificity of 87.0%, positive predictive value of 93.8%, and negative predictive value of 66.7%. Conclusion: ABVS combined with conventional hand-held ultrasound showed high diagnostic value in detecting female breast cancer. The "convergence sign" in the coronal section played a significant role. It slightly outperformed mammography and offered advantages in terms of cost, convenience, comfort, and absence of radiation. Further promotion and implementation are supported.
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.