SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Diagnostic performance and clinical utility of shear-wave elastography in musculoskeletal soft-tissue tumors: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Shear-wave elastography (SWE) is increasingly used to assess musculoskeletal soft-tissue masses, but its diagnostic performance relative to ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) remains uncertain. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, reproducibility, and clinical utility of SWE for differentiating benign and malignant soft-tissue tumors. Methods: Following PRISMA-DTA guidelines, PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and RSNA/WFUMB proceedings were searched through 22 September 2025. Eligible studies included patients with histologically verified extraosseous soft-tissue masses evaluated using quantitative SWE. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve (AUC) were extracted or reconstructed. Owing to marked methodological and threshold heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis was performed. Certainty of evidence was rated with GRADE-DTA. Results: Ten studies (n = 1,335 lesions; 22-41% malignant) met inclusion criteria following a search of six databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and RSNA/WFUMB proceedings) through 22 September 2025. SWE reproducibility was high where reported (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.85 in four studies), but diagnostic performance varied widely (AUC range 0.57-0.87). In some studies, In selected studies, SWE was associated with potentially higher specificity in benign-appearing or superficial lesions (ΔAUC +0.07 vs US in one cohort), but it failed to distinguish lipomatous or deep lesions from malignancy. MRI remained superior in most direct comparisons (AUC 0.85-0.90). Threshold heterogeneity and poor cross-vendor reproducibility limited generalizability. Certainty of evidence was moderate for superficial lesions and low for deep or lipomatous tumors. Conclusion: SWE demonstrates excellent reproducibility but inconsistent diagnostic utility across lesion types. It should be applied selectively primarily for superficial, non-fatty lesions as an adjunct to US rather than as a stand-alone diagnostic tool. Standardized acquisition protocols and vendor calibration are prerequisites for broader clinical adoption. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=1172017, identifier CRD420251172017.
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.