ReviewCureus2026
A Systematic Narrative Review of Idiopathic Granulomatous Mastitis: Evidence, Management Challenges, and Recurrence Patterns.
Review in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Idiopathic granulomatous mastitis (IGM), also known as granulomatous lobular mastitis, is a rare, benign, chronic inflammatory breast disease that primarily affects women of reproductive age and frequently mimics breast carcinoma clinically and radiologically, making diagnosis challenging. Its aetiology remains poorly understood, and treatment is not standardised. This systematic narrative review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and included English-language studies published between January 2009 and March 2026 identified through PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). Studies addressing the aetiology, clinical features, diagnosis, management, or outcomes of IGM were eligible, and data were extracted using a standardised Microsoft Excel form (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA). A total of 271 studies were included, with publication trends demonstrating increasing research activity over time and the highest volume of studies published between 2023 and 2025. Most studies were retrospective observational studies (29.7%; n = 81) or case reports (22.3%; n = 61), while prospective studies (8.8%; n = 24) and interventional trials (4.8%; n = 13) were limited. Thematic analysis showed that treatment and therapeutics were the most frequently studied areas (31%; n = 120), followed by diagnosis and diagnostic methods (25%; n = 95). Recurring findings included diagnostic uncertainty, a lack of standardised treatment protocols, variable recurrence risk, and inconsistent predictors of treatment escalation, while common limitations included small sample sizes, retrospective study designs, single-centre data, and methodological heterogeneity. Overall, IGM remains a diagnostically difficult condition with uncertain aetiology and heterogeneous management; despite growing research interest, the overall level of evidence remains low, highlighting the need for multicentre prospective studies and standardised diagnostic and treatment guidelines to improve evidence-based care and patient outcomes.
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.