ArticleNPJ breast cancer2026
Targeted axillary dissection in breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in NPJ breast cancer, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Targeted axillary dissection (TAD) is an innovative approach for axillary staging in breast cancer patients with initially node-positive disease that converts to clinically node-negative status after neoadjuvant therapy. Optimal marking and localization techniques remain undetermined. This systematic review and meta-analysis searched PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science through April 2025, including 59 observational studies on TAD (marked/clipped node removal plus sentinel lymph node biopsy) in such patients. Primary outcomes were identification rate, false-negative rate (FNR), concordance, and diagnostic accuracy. Using R software with random-effects models and logit transformation, TAD achieved a pooled identification rate of 95.1% (95% CI: 93.2%-96.5%). Pooled FNR was 6.37% (95% CI: 5.02%-8.04%; I² = 0.0%), with overall diagnostic accuracy of 94.68% (95% CI: 91.70%-96.63%). Targeted and sentinel nodes concorded in 73.34% (95% CI: 69.58%-76.79%). Subgroup analyses showed comparable performance across marking (clip, carbon, magnetic, radioactive seeds) and localization techniques (wire-guided, radioactive, magnetic, ultrasound-guided), with no significant differences. TAD offers high identification rates, low FNRs, reliable staging, and acceptable accuracy, with consistent results enabling implementation using locally available technologies.
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.