ArticleAdvanced biomedical research2025
Determining the Diagnostic Value of DWIBS in the Diagnosis of Breast Lesions Compared to Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI: A Retrospective Observational Study.
Article in Advanced biomedical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Breast cancer screening challenges in women with breast augmentation: Evidence from a comprehensive health checkup program.Global health & medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diffusion-weighted imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS) is a new imaging tool for the diagnosis of breast lesions. This study aims to compare DWIBS with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) sequences. Materials and Methods: Eighty consecutive patients underwent both CE-MRI and DWIBS images. DWIBS was assessed qualitatively and quantitatively using the apparent diffusion coefficient mapping. A threshold of 1.44 × 10 Results: Fifty-five out of 80 lesions (69%) were benign, and 25 malignant lesions (31%) have been reported. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for CE-MRI were 100, 38, 42, and 100%, respectively, and those for DWIBS were 77, 70, 53, and 87%, respectively. By comparing DWIBS and CE-MRI data, no statistically significant difference was reported. Conclusion: DWIBS can be used as an effective alternative for breast CE-MRI in cases of contradictions of IV contrast injection.
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.