ArticlePeerJ2024
Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and shear-wave elastography for small breast nodules.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic value of mammography combined with ultrasound shear wave elastography and magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer.Oncology letters · 2025Article
- Ultrasound elastography: advances and challenges in early detection of breast cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The study aims to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and shear-wave elastography (SWE) in detecting small malignant breast nodules in an effort to inform further refinements of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification system. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed patients with breast nodules who underwent conventional ultrasound, CEUS, and SWE at Gongli Hospital from November 2015 to December 2019. The inclusion criteria were nodules ≤ 2 cm in diameter with pathological outcomes determined by biopsy, no prior treatments, and solid or predominantly solid nodules. The exclusion criteria included pregnancy or lactation and low-quality images. Imaging features were detailed and classified per BI-RADS. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curves. Results: The study included 302 patients with 305 breast nodules, 113 of which were malignant. The diagnostic accuracy was significantly improved by combining the BI-RADS classification with CEUS and SWE. The combined approach yielded a sensitivity of 88.5%, specificity of 87.0%, positive predictive value of 80.0%, negative predictive value of 92.8%, and accuracy of 87.5% with an area under the curve of 0.877. Notably, 55.8% of BI-RADS 4A nodules were downgraded to BI-RADS 3 and confirmed as benign after pathological examination, suggesting the potential to avoid unnecessary biopsies. Conclusion: The integrated use of the BI-RADS classification, CEUS, and SWE enhances the accuracy of differentiating benign and malignant small breast nodule, potentially reducing the need for unnecessary biopsies.
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.