Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39906662›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024

A multi-centre, randomised trial for diagnostic efficacy of the automatic breast volume scanner ultrasound for breast cancer screening in China.

Ying Xu, Yali Xu, Songjie Shen, Feng Mao, Xiaohui Zhang, Yanna Zhang, Yan Lin, Yidong Zhou, Qiang Sun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Ying Xu *Department of Breast Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Yali Xu *Department of Breast Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Songjie Shen *Department of Breast Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Feng MaoDepartment of Breast Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Xiaohui ZhangDepartment of Breast Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Yanna ZhangDepartment of Breast Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Yan LinDepartment of Breast Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Yidong ZhouDepartment of Breast Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Qiang SunDepartment of Breast Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The US plays a crucial role in screening Asian women for breast disease. ABUS offers several advantages over traditional HHUS, including quicker examination, objectivity, and the ability to store and reconstruct images. This study marks the first large-scale opportunistic screening of ABUS in the population. Methods: Between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019, 10,537 women aged 35-75 years from nine districts were randomly assigned to either HHUS or ABUS groups. Diagnostic methods were quantified, and comparisons were made using the Chi-square test. Results: The screening groups consisted of 5,445 participants for HHUS and 4,936 for ABUS. The HHUS and ABUS groups identified 90 carcinomas and 292 benign lesions or 71 carcinomas and 178 benign lesions, respectively. SE), SP, AC, PPV, and NPV for HHUS were 51.11%, 93.84%, 93.13%, 12.23%, and 99.13%, respectively, while for ABUS, they were 66.20%, 93.77%, 93.38%, 13.43%, and 98.98%. The area under the curve (AUC) values for HHUS and ABUS were 0.72 (95% CI: 0.67-0.78) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82-0.91), respectively, indicating superior diagnostic performance of ABUS over HHUS (Delong test p < 0.05). Discussion: ABUS is user-friendly, requires minimal training, reduces reliance on examiner experience, and demonstrates potential for superior sensitivity compared to HHUS in breast cancer screening.

Indexed as

ABUSbreast cancerbreast screeningHHUSultrasound

Identifiers

PMID39906662
PMCPMC11790623

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.