ArticleBMC medical imaging2026
The value of the "map sign" in shear wave elastography for differentiating seminomas from non-seminomas.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiagnosing testicular tumors that are negative for tumor markers using ultrasound and MRI is currently challenging. Seminomas and non-seminomas of the testis have different clinical diagnoses and treatment plans. Shear wave elastography (SWE) can reflect tissue stiffness, aiding in tumor type differentiation. This study aims to explore the diagnostic value of SWE color images in differentiating seminomas from non-seminomas of the testis by analyzing their characteristic features.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on the SWE features of 39 pathologically confirmed testicular tumors negative for tumor markers. Based on pathological results, the tumors were divided into seminoma and non-seminoma groups. Differences in conventional ultrasound and SWE features between the two groups were analyzed.
resultsThere were no statistically significant differences in location, shape, echo type, echo uniformity, SWE maximum value and SWE average value between the seminoma and non-seminoma groups (all p > 0.05), with respective p-values of 0.256, 0.458, 0.847, 0.298, 0.394, and 0.245. However, 76% (16/21) of seminomas showed a “map sign” (predominantly blue with red streaks) on SWE, while 0% (0/18) of non-seminomas showed this sign. There was a statistically significant difference in SWE color image features between the seminoma and non-seminoma groups (p = 0.000). Using the “map sign” as a diagnostic criterion for seminomas, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 76.2%, 100%, 100%, 78.2% and 87.2%, respectively, showing a statistically significant difference compared to conventional ultrasound (p = 0.030).
conclusionThe “map sign” on SWE can accurately diagnose testicular seminomas, improving the accuracy of conventional ultrasound diagnosis. This technique is non-invasive, simple, and repeatable, and it holds promise as a new method for diagnosing testicular seminomas.
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.