ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
A multi-centre, randomised trial for diagnostic efficacy of the automatic breast volume scanner ultrasound for breast cancer screening in China.
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.
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.
- Automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) meets artificial intelligence: a new accurate classification tool for BIRADS 3-4 breast lesions.Journal of ultrasound · 2026Article
- Breast Cancer Screening Programs in China: Implementation, Challenges, and Future Perspectives.Korean journal of radiology · 2026Review
- Breast Cancer Screening in Asian Countries: Epidemiology, Screening Practices, Outcomes, Challenges, and Future Directions.Korean journal of radiology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.