ReviewCancers2024
Are Imaging Evaluations of Soft-Tissue Masses Before Referral to a Specialized Center Being Performed Properly? A Systematic Review.
Review in Cancers, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesSince the initial approach towards the clinical presentation of soft-tissue masses is challenging for frontline physicians, some countries use clinical practice guidelines. Proper imaging work-up is crucial to differentiate between soft-tissue tumors. Recently, ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have been widely used. But there is some controversy about whether pre-referral evaluations are being conducted properly. Thus, this study aims to assess whether the ultrasonography investigation of soft-tissue masses prior to referral to the musculoskeletal tumor center is being performed adequately in terms of indications, diagnostic accuracy, and referral interval, and to evaluate whether the pre-referral MRI for soft-tissue masses is being conducted reasonably concerning indications, imaging protocol, reporting, diagnostic accuracy, and cost-effectiveness.
methodsThe study protocol was registered. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. We performed a database search of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Then, two authors reviewed the studies, and the third author resolved any disagreement between them. A total of nine studies were included. The Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies-of Interventions was applied. Relevant data were extracted by two authors.
resultsThis review showed that the way that the imaging investigations are performed in non-specialized centers before referral was generally considered inappropriate.
conclusionsFrontline physicians should regard the alarm symptom as an indication for advanced imaging evaluation. Education and certification may be required for ultrasonography. MRI should be performed and interpreted in a specialized center or by a specialist with relevant expertise. Guidance may help reduce inappropriate imaging.
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.