SynthesisClinical and experimental medicine2026
The predictive value of lymph node status pre-operation by ultrasound and MRI in early and newly diagnosed breast cancer.
Synthesis in Clinical and experimental medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate pre-operative assessment of axillary lymph node status is key for planning surgeries in early and newly diagnosed breast cancer. Ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are widely used, but their performance is inconsistent across studies. This meta-analysis evaluates and compares the predictive performance of MRI and US for pre-operative lymph node metastasis in early and newly diagnosed breast cancer.
methodsWe searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science (inception-31 December 2025) for studies on diagnostic performance in preoperative axillary staging using ultrasound and/or MRI. Two independent reviewers extracted or reconstructed true positive, true negative, false positive, false negative, and applied QUADAS-2. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled with random-effects GLMM, with direct comparisons and prevalence-based predictive values.
resultsTwenty-nine studies (n = 8,544) were included. Pooled sensitivity/specificity were 61.1%/92.0% for MRI and 59.8%/90.3% for ultrasound, yielding LR + 7.64 vs. 6.19 and DOR 18.1 vs. 13.9. HSROC AUCs were 0.863 (MRI) and 0.843 (ultrasound). In paired cohorts (k = 12), sensitivity did not differ, and MRI showed a non-significant specificity advantage.
conclusionMRI and ultrasound showed comparable, moderate sensitivity and high specificity for preoperative axillary metastasis. MRI tended toward higher specificity and positive predictive value, whereas sensitivity did not differ in paired studies. Imaging can guide triage, but histopathology remains necessary for definitive staging.
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.