ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2026
Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of mammography and ultrasonography for breast cancer diagnosis using histopathology as the reference standard: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2026. 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.
- Oxidative stress and antioxidants in breast cancer: a double-edged sword.Frontiers in oncology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aim: Breast cancer remains the most common malignancy and the leading cause of cancer-related death among women globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Early and accurate diagnosis is critical to improving survival outcomes. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography and mammography in detecting breast carcinoma, using histopathology as the gold standard. Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted in a radiology department at a tertiary care hospital, including 240 female patients presenting with clinically palpable breast lesions. Each participant underwent both mammography and ultrasonography prior to biopsy. Data collection included lesion characteristics, imaging findings, and histopathological results. Diagnostic performance was evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall accuracy. Results: Ultrasound demonstrated a consistent diagnostic accuracy of 86.3% in both breasts, with high NPVs (≥95.7%) and good sensitivity in dense tissue. Mammography showed variability between sides: accuracy was 81.7% on the right and 94.6% on the left, with left-sided sensitivity reaching 100%. Ultrasound was more effective in identifying hyperechoic lesions and smooth margins, while mammography was superior in detecting calcifications and architectural distortions. Statistical testing confirmed significant associations ( Conclusion: This study highlights the complementary diagnostic value of ultrasonography and mammography in the evaluation of breast carcinoma. Ultrasound demonstrated consistent diagnostic accuracy and strong NPV, making it particularly valuable in premenopausal women and those with dense breast tissue. Mammography, on the other hand, showed superiority in detecting microcalcifications and subtle architectural distortions, underscoring its indispensable role in identifying ductal carcinoma
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.