↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of qualitative and semiquantitative strain elastography in breast lesions for diagnostic accuracy

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Imaging, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Comparison of qualitative and semiquantitative strain elastography in breast lesions for diagnostic accuracy
Published in
Cancer Imaging, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40644-016-0070-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy Musila Mutala, Purity Ndaiga, Angeline Aywak

Abstract

Strain elastography can be purely qualitative or semiquantitative using both strain score and strain ratio. The aim of this study was to establish the accuracy of semiquantitative elastography using both strain score and strain ratio in differentiating benign from malignant breast masses. The diagnostic performance of the two methods was analysed for any statistically significant difference. A prospective study was carried out from May to December 2014 in the University of Nairobi, Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Radiation Medicine. One hundred and eighteen patients referred for breast ultrasound following clinical detection of masses certified the inclusion criteria. All solid masses identified on grey scale imaging were subjected to strain elastography. Elastographic findings were represented in both strain score and strain ratio. Comparison of diagnostic performance with histological findings as the gold standard for all detected solid masses was done. Fisher's exact test and receiver operating characteristics curves were applied for statistical analysis to look for any significant differences between the diagnostic performance of strain score and strain ratio. Out of the 118, three patients did not attend for all the examinations and three biopsy results were misplaced therefore analysis was done for 112 subjects. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of elasticity strain (Ueno) score were 0.86, 0.96, 0.89 and 0.96 respectively. For the strain ratio the values were 0.93, 0.96, 0.90 and 0.96 respectively. Fisher's exact test P values comparing the sensitivity and specificity were 0.69 and 1.00 respectively not considered significant at p 0.05 levels. The areas under the curve (AUCs) from the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were 0.972 and 0.976 for strain score and ratio respectively with a strong Pearson's correlation coefficient, r 0.79 indicating a high diagnostic accuracy for both methods but no statistically significant difference in performance. Semiquantitative ultrasound elastography has good diagnostic accuracy in differentiating benign and malignant breast solid lesions and there is no statistically significant difference between strain score and strain ratio in sensitivity, specificity and accuracy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 6 15%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 13 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Unknown 17 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 June 2016.
All research outputs
#16,047,334
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Imaging
#238
of 674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,635
of 351,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Imaging
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 674 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
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 351,836 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.