Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35574339›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022

Diagnostic Performance of US and MRI in Predicting Malignancy of Soft Tissue Masses: Using a Scoring System.

Hua Shu, Qian Ma, Ao Li, Pingping Wang, Yingqian Gao, Qiyu Yao, Yu Hu, Xinhua Ye

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hua ShuDepartment of Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Qian MaDepartment of Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Ao LiDepartment of Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Pingping WangDepartment of Ultrasound, Affiliated Zhongda Hospital of Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
Yingqian GaoDepartment of Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Qiyu YaoDepartment of Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Yu HuDepartment of Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Xinhua YeDepartment of Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Nanjing Medical University · CNJiangsu Province Hospital · CNZhongda Hospital Southeast University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To assess the diagnostic performance of US and MRI in predicting malignancy of soft tissue masses by using a scoring system. Methods: A total of 120 cases of pathologically confirmed soft tissue masses (71 cases of malignant lesions and 49 cases of benign lesions) were enrolled. All patients underwent ultrasound and MRI examination prior to biopsy or surgical excision. A scoring system based on the parameters of conventional US and MRI to distinguish malignant and benign masses was established by the regression model. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of US and MRI. Results: Multivariate analysis showed that margin, maximum diameter, and vascular density were independent predictors for malignancy found by US, while maximum diameter, margin, and affected peripheral soft tissue were independent predictors for malignancy found by MRI. The mean scores of the benign and malignant groups were 2.8 ± 1.6, 5.1 ± 1.1 on US and 1.3 ± 1.2, 3.5 ± 0.9 on MRI. Based on the cut-off score of 3.5 and 2.5 calculated by ROC analysis, US and MRI had 92% and 87% sensitivity, 72% and 76% specificity, 86% and 89% accuracy, respectively. The combination of these two modalities achieved the sensitivity of 91%, specificity of 82%, and accuracy of 93%. Conclusions: Both US and MRI can provide valuable information about the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant soft tissue masses. The combination of the two imaging-based scoring systems can increase the diagnostic performance, especially in specificity.

Indexed as

diagnosismagnetic resonance imagingneoplasmsoft tissue massultrasonography

Identifiers

PMID35574339
PMCPMC9104333
OpenAlexW4225133379

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.