Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40104478›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

Imaging Findings of Lupus Mastitis: A Systematic Review of Case Studies.

Stephanie Nagy, Kitty Daniel, Marc M Kesselman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Stephanie NagyRheumatology, Nova Southeastern University Dr. Kiran C. Patel College of Osteopathic Medicine, Davie, USA.
Kitty DanielRadiology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami, USA.
Marc M KesselmanRheumatology, Nova Southeastern University Dr. Kiran C. Patel College of Osteopathic Medicine, Davie, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lupus mastitis (LM) is a rare manifestation of systemic lupus erythematosus, resulting in an inflammatory process within the breast tissue. This condition presents diagnostic challenges due to its similarity to other breast pathologies, including infections and malignancies. Clinically, patients may exhibit symptoms such as breast pain, swelling, and erythema, often leading to further investigation through imaging and histopathological analysis. Given the absence of established clinical guidelines for LM, identifying the most effective imaging and laboratory techniques is essential for accurate diagnosis and treatment. In this paper, 32 patient case reports were analyzed, with 20 patients having previous diagnoses of lupus and 12 not previously diagnosed. The study population comprised 90.6% (n=29) women, with a mean age of 44 years and an average disease duration of 10 years. The majority of LM was unilateral, with 50% (n=16) of patients experiencing LM in the right breast, 31.2% (n=10) in the left breast, and 18.8% (n=6) bilaterally. The location varied to almost all quadrants of the breast. The rarity of LM contributes to clinician unawareness, often resulting in misdiagnosis and confusion. As there are currently no guidelines, in this study we examined the imaging findings of LM through a variety of modalities and reported a suggested clinical guideline to follow for the diagnoses of LM.

Indexed as

breast lesioncutaneous lupus erythematosusdiscoid lupus erythematosuslupus erythematosus profunduslupus mastitislupus panniculitissystemic lupus erythematosus

Identifiers

PMID40104478
PMCPMC11913633

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.