ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024
Nipple Adenoma: Systematic Review of Literature.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2024. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Nipple adenomas (NAs) are rare benign proliferative tumors presenting as palpable nodules, erosive lesions, or nipple discharge, mimicking other conditions. This systematic review categorizes cases into sole NA (ONA) or co-diagnoses with other conditions (CONA) to enhance clinical recognition, diagnosis, and treatment efficacy. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a PubMed search was conducted for NA. Inclusion criteria covered original research, excluding reviews or other breast diseases. Bias risk was assessed through a thorough search, authors independently evaluated studies, and data were synthesized using varied measures. Subgroups ONA and CONA were formed. Analyses were conducted in Excel and R, complemented by a qualitative review due to case report predominance. Biases in case reports were transparently addressed. Results: Of the 86 studies, 387 cases were analyzed, showing 10.34% with co-diagnoses of malignant or premalignant conditions. Mean age was 44, with a female predominance (97%). ONA (347 cases) and CONA (40 cases) subgroups exhibited variations in symptoms, physical findings, and imaging. Treatment modalities included excision (51.39%), biopsy alone (11.1%), and mastectomy (8.6%). Mean follow-up of 56.73 months revealed recurrence (2.87%) and malignancy development (1.79%), notably in CONA cases (33.33%). Conclusions: This study provides insights into the broader age range of NA and its associations. Higher co-diagnosis rates were correlated with older age, highlighting the necessity for thorough investigation, with excision as the primary treatment. Follow-up emphasizes the significance of identifying and monitoring CONA cases, which pose a higher malignancy risk. Recurrence is presumed to be linked to proper lesion excision and co-diagnosis.
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.