ArticleScientific reports2025
Non-inferiority of minimally invasive rotational cutting in granulomatous mastitis treatment: a comparative trial.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- An endocrine microbe immunity framework for granulomatous mastitis toward phenotype-oriented interpretation.iScience · 2026Review
- Molecular Targeted Therapy for Chronic Non-Bacterial Mastitis: New Insights into Pathophysiology and Therapeutic Strategies.International journal of women's health · 2026Review
- Evaluating the efficacy of topical steroids in idiopathic granulomatous mastitis: a prospective cohort study.Gland surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Granulomatous mastitis (GM) poses challenges in diagnosis and treatment due to its similarities with other breast diseases like cancer. The comparative study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a vacuum-assisted biopsy device with minimally invasive excisions compared to traditional wide local excisions. The vacuum-assisted biopsy device technique offers benefits such as precise tissue removal, reduced damage to healthy tissue, shorter surgery and recovery times, and lower postoperative complication risks. The study found that the vacuum-assisted biopsy device had comparable efficacy to traditional wide local excision in treating GM with an overall effectiveness rate of 92.9% and a recurrence rate of 9.52%. The vacuum-assisted biopsy device group showed advantages in reduced hospitalization duration (2.83 days vs. 7.52 days), lower costs, and better cosmetic outcomes, with a 100% patient satisfaction rate compared to 80% in the control group. This study fills existing clinical evidence gaps regarding the effectiveness and safety of vacuum-assisted biopsy device in GM treatment. By providing evidence-based guidelines, it aims to assist clinicians in choosing the most appropriate treatment for GM patients, ultimately improving their quality of life and mental well-being. The research contributes valuable insights into GM therapy, potentially revolutionizing treatment approaches and enhancing patient outcomes.
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.