↓ Skip to main content

Limitations of mammography in the diagnosis of breast diseases compared with ultrasonography: a single-center retrospective analysis of 274 cases

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Medical Research, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Limitations of mammography in the diagnosis of breast diseases compared with ultrasonography: a single-center retrospective analysis of 274 cases
Published in
European Journal of Medical Research, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40001-015-0140-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hong Zhao, Liwei Zou, Xiaoping Geng, Suisheng Zheng

Abstract

The aim of this study is to compare X-ray mammography (MG) and ultrasonography (US) in the diagnosis of breast diseases in Chinese women. We retrospectively analyzed X-ray mammograms of 274 patients with US and surgical/pathological results of breast diseases diagnosed at The Second Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University (Hefei, China) between March 2011 and November 2014. The MG and US data were compared to surgical records using the results from post-surgical pathological examinations as the gold standard. The overall sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, false-positive, false-negative, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for the detection of breast cancer were 88.5%, 57.9%, 73.7%, 42.1%, 11.5%, 69.2%, and 82.5%, respectively, for MG and 95.9%, 66.7%, 81.8%, 33.3%, 4.1%, 75.5%, and 93.8%, respectively, for US. Of the 274 cases, lesion size by MG agreed with surgery in 133 (48.5%) patients compared with 216 (78.8%) by US (P < 0.01). Lesion location by MG agreed with surgery in 146 (53.3%) patients compared with 257 (93.8%) by US (P < 0.01). These values were then stratified according to age, menstrual status, breast density, and breast volume, and the agreement rates of MG with surgery were lower than that of US (all P < 0.01), except when the lesion size was >5 cm (P > 0.05). US was better than MG in the preoperative evaluation of breast diseases of Chinese women. These results suggest that US could be more useful for detecting breast lesions in China, especially for younger women with dense breasts.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 23%
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Lecturer 4 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 19 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 17%
Computer Science 5 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 19 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 February 2016.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Medical Research
#728
of 923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,326
of 279,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Medical Research
#14
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,762 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.