SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Comparison of the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided surgery with traditional surgery for plasma cell mastitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
- Plasma cell mastitis: a comprehensive review of etiological advances and future directions.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to offer an updated, comprehensive comparison of the efficacy and safety between ultrasound-guided surgery (UGS) and traditional surgery (TS) for plasma cell mastitis (PCM). Methods: Studies comparing UGS with conventional surgery for PCM were retrieved from Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang databases (up to March 2025). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted to assess result stability and identify sources of heterogeneity. All findings were evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Analyses were performed with Review Manager 5.4 and STATA 15.0. Results: Nine eligible studies, including 951 patients (486 UGS, 465 TS), were analyzed. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. Pooled analysis indicated that UGS resulted in shorter operative time, lower postoperative complication rates, reduced intraoperative hemorrhage, lower visual analog scale (VAS) scores, improved efficacy, and higher satisfaction with overall appearance. Recurrence rates and pain satisfaction were comparable between the two groups. According to GRADE classification, results for efficacy, satisfaction, and mammary deformity were rated as low-quality evidence, while other outcomes were rated as very low-quality due to significant heterogeneity, imprecision, or publication bias. Conclusion: Evidence suggests that UGS improves efficacy, satisfaction, and reduces postoperative complications for PCM. However, given the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, further high-quality research is needed to confirm these findings. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.
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.