ArticleLa Radiologia medica2024
Retrospective study on the strength of magnetic resonance signs for predicting breast implant rupture: assessing the impact of radiologist expertise at a breast cancer referral center.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 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.
- Contrast Agents in Breast MRI: State of the Art and Future Perspectives.Biomedicines · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluates the diagnostic criteria of MRI for breast implant rupture and examines the influence of radiologist experience on the accuracy of rupture detection.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted in a single center, involving patients who underwent implant replacement surgery between March 2019 and October 2022. MRI evaluations by four radiologists of varying experience levels were compared with surgical outcomes.
resultsThe study included 118 explanted prostheses, with 25 identified as ruptured. Expert radiologists demonstrated near-perfect agreement (κ = 0.94) in identifying rupture signs, with high PPV and NPV, whereas non-experts showed only moderate agreement (κ = 0.44). Indicators such as the linguine sign, subcapsular line, and keyhole sign were identified with high accuracy by experts, contrasting with non-experts' lower detection rates.
conclusionsExpertise in radiology significantly impacts the accurate diagnosis of breast implant ruptures. This study supports updating radiological guidelines and underscores the importance of specialized training and experience in improving diagnostic outcomes in breast implant assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39514154What 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.