ArticleEuropean radiology2020
Accuracy of ultrasound in the characterisation of deep soft tissue masses: a prospective study.
Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiparametric Ultrasound in the Differential Diagnosis of Soft Tissue Tumors: A Comprehensive Review.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Narrative review of chest wall ultrasound: a practical approach.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Review
- Accuracy of clinical diagnosis, imaging methods, and biopsy in tumours and pseudo-tumours of the hand.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- A practical risk stratification system based on ultrasonography and clinical characteristics for predicting the malignancy of soft tissue masses.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- Ultrasound performance in pediatric deep soft-tissue tumor characterization.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Practical approach to ultrasound of soft tissue tumors and the added value of MRI: how I do it.Journal of ultrasonography · 2023Article
- Diagnostic Performance of US and MRI in Predicting Malignancy of Soft Tissue Masses: Using a Scoring System.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the accuracy of ultrasound in characterising the type of mass and likelihood of malignancy in deep soft tissue masses.
methodsFive hundred seventy-nine deep soft tissue masses were prospectively studied by ultrasound. Masses (n = 137) with prior MRI or CT were not included. Following ultrasound examination, the likely nature of the mass as well as the confidence of the reporting radiologist ('fully confident' versus 'not fully confident') about the ultrasound diagnosis was recorded. Clinical and ultrasound diagnoses were compared with the histological diagnosis which was available in 134 (23%) of the 579 masses.
resultsCompared with histology, clinical and ultrasound accuracy for characterising the type of mass were 47% and 88% respectively when all differential diagnoses were considered. The radiologist was fully confident regarding the type of 436 (75%) of 579 masses and, in this setting, for those cases that could be compared with histology, diagnostic accuracy was 96%. For the remaining masses, where the radiologist was not fully confident, accuracy compared with histology was 58% for the first differential diagnosis and 80% for all differential diagnoses. For identifying malignancy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value of ultrasound were 97%, 58%, 67%, and 99% respectively. Ultrasound alone was considered sufficient for diagnostic workup in over half of all deep soft tissue masses.
conclusionUltrasound is useful at characterising and recognising malignancy in deep soft tissue masses. Provided local practice patterns are favourable, ultrasound may be considered a first-line investigation in the diagnostic workup of deep soft tissue masses. KEY POINTS: • In three-quarters of cases, one can be fully confident about characterising the nature of deep soft tissue masses on ultrasound and, for those fully confident cases that could be compared with histology, the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound was 96%. • Ultrasound can correctly recognise nearly all malignant deep soft tissue masses but some benign masses will also be considered possibly malignant. • Ultrasound alone was considered sufficient for imaging workup in over half of deep soft tissue masses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32591891What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.