ArticleGland surgery2025
Diagnostic accuracy of automated breast volume scanning, hand-held ultrasound and molybdenum-target mammography for breast lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Gland surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Machine Learning-Enhanced Proteomics to a Validated Diagnostic Model: A Pipeline for Breast Cancer Biomarker Discovery via Independent and Transcriptomic Corroboration.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Bioactive Natural Compounds in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Molecular Targets and Therapeutic Perspectives.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- An Interpretable Ensemble Transformer Framework for Breast Cancer Detection in Ultrasound Images.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Given the high incidence and increasing burden of breast cancer, more approaches are needed to improve the early diagnosis of breast cancer. The three mainstream diagnostic methods, automated breast volume scanning (ABVS), hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) and mammography, are still controversial in their diagnostic accuracy. The aim of this study is to systematically evaluate the accuracy of three diagnostic methods. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Wanfang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP and SinoMed databases were searched by computer. Studies on the accuracy of ABVS, HHUS and mammography in the diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions were collected, and the search time limit was from the establishment of the database to August 2022. The Chi-square test was then performed using Meta-Disc software, and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool was used for bias and quality assessment. Results: A total of 31 studies involving 8,107 benign or malignant lesion were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under curve for HHUS were 0.86 (0.84, 0.87), 0.80 (0.78, 0.81), 4.20 (3.53, 4.99), 0.20 (0.16, 0.24), 22.88 (16.84, 31.08) and 0.898, respectively. And those for ABVS were 0.90 (0.89, 0.91), 0.87 (0.86, 0.88), 7.93 (5.05, 12.45), 0.11 (0.09, 0.15), 74.63 (45.37, 122.76) and 0.956, respectively. And those for molybdenum-target mammography were 0.81 (0.78, 0.84), 0.90 (0.88, 0.91), 6.94 (4.32, 11.17), 0.23 (0.18, 0.29), 31.41 (17.01, 57.98) and 0.887, respectively. Indicators related to patient selection and reference standards suggested a high risk of bias in several included studies. Conclusions: Meta-analysis found a higher diagnostic accuracy of ABVS in benign and malignant breast lesions. These results provide a reference for clinical practitioners in the selection of diagnostic methods, but considering the possible bias of the included studies, the results need to be treated with caution and further verified.
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.