ArticlePolish journal of radiology2026
An observational study of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in diagnosing malignant breast masses.
Article in Polish journal of radiology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To study the diagnostic role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and its comparison with grey-scale ultrasound with colour Doppler in characterising malignant breast masses. Material and methods: An observational study was done for duration of 18 months, including 64 adult females with breast masses. Patients underwent various investigations in the form of conventional ultrasound with colour Doppler and CEUS. Patients underwent surgery, and a histopathological examination was performed on a surgical specimen for confirmation of a benign or malignant lesion. Outcome measures were the proportion of benign and malignant lesions of the breast and the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS in characterising malignant lesions in the breast. Results: On analysis, CEUS showed very good agreement with histopathological diagnosis with κ 0.967 ( Conclusions: CEUS was found to have a better diagnostic accuracy for differentiation of benign and malignant breast masses (using histopathology as a gold standard). The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy of CEUS was found to be 99%, 96%, 97.4%, 99%, and 98.4% respectively.
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.