Zheying Meng1, Cui Chen1, Yitong Zhu2, Shuling Zhang1, Cong Wei1, Bin Hu1, Li Yu1, Bing Hu3, E Shen4. 1. Department of Ultrasound in Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, No. 600 Yishan Road, Shanghai, 200233, China. 2. Department of Gerontology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, No. 600 Yishan Road, Shanghai, 200233, China. 3. Department of Ultrasound in Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, No. 600 Yishan Road, Shanghai, 200233, China. shslycsyxk@163.com. 4. Department of Ultrasound in Medicine, Tongren Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 1111 Xianxia Road, Shanghai, 200336, China. sjlyxzcs@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the inter-rater reliability and agreement of the automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) and the diagnostic accuracy for differentiating malignant and benign lesions. The overall aim was to find out if the ABVS is applicable to daily clinical practice. METHODS: Qualifying studies were retrieved from Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Biosis Preview, CBM disc and by manual search and reference lists up to 30 September 2014. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of ABVS were calculated and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were drawn. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in the meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy and seven studies were included in the systematic review of inter-rater reliability/agreement of ABVS. For 'diagnostic accuracy', the pooled values of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio were 92 % (95 % CI 89.9-93.8), 84.9 % (82.4-87.0), 6.172 (4.364-8.730), 0.101 (0.075-0.136), and 72.226 (39.637-131.61), respectively. For the studies of inter-rater reliability/agreement, the quality was heterogeneous and no evidenced result can be pooled. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivity and specificity of ABVS for differentiating malignant and benign breast lesions were high. More sound studies focusing on inter-rater reliability/agreement of ABVS, which deeply affect the clinical utilization and generalization of ABVS, are urgently needed. KEY POINTS: • ABVS has high sensitivity and specificity in differentiating malignant and benign breast lesions. • The quality of published inter-rater reliability studies is heterogeneous. • Empirical evidence concerning the inter-rater reliability/agreement for the ABVS is rare. • Comparison studies on ABVS and other medical imaging examinations are warranted.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the inter-rater reliability and agreement of the automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) and the diagnostic accuracy for differentiating malignant and benign lesions. The overall aim was to find out if the ABVS is applicable to daily clinical practice. METHODS: Qualifying studies were retrieved from Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Biosis Preview, CBM disc and by manual search and reference lists up to 30 September 2014. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of ABVS were calculated and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were drawn. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in the meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy and seven studies were included in the systematic review of inter-rater reliability/agreement of ABVS. For 'diagnostic accuracy', the pooled values of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio were 92 % (95 % CI 89.9-93.8), 84.9 % (82.4-87.0), 6.172 (4.364-8.730), 0.101 (0.075-0.136), and 72.226 (39.637-131.61), respectively. For the studies of inter-rater reliability/agreement, the quality was heterogeneous and no evidenced result can be pooled. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivity and specificity of ABVS for differentiating malignant and benign breast lesions were high. More sound studies focusing on inter-rater reliability/agreement of ABVS, which deeply affect the clinical utilization and generalization of ABVS, are urgently needed. KEY POINTS: • ABVS has high sensitivity and specificity in differentiating malignant and benign breast lesions. • The quality of published inter-rater reliability studies is heterogeneous. • Empirical evidence concerning the inter-rater reliability/agreement for the ABVS is rare. • Comparison studies on ABVS and other medical imaging examinations are warranted.
Entities:
Keywords:
Accuracy; Automated breast volume scanner (ABVS); Breast neoplasms; Imaging; Inter-rater agreement
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet; Jeroen G Lijmer Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-01-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Danny R Youlden; Susanna M Cramb; Nathan A M Dunn; Jennifer M Muller; Christopher M Pyke; Peter D Baade Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2012-03-27 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Andrew Evans; Rubina M Trimboli; Alexandra Athanasiou; Corinne Balleyguier; Pascal A Baltzer; Ulrich Bick; Julia Camps Herrero; Paola Clauser; Catherine Colin; Eleanor Cornford; Eva M Fallenberg; Michael H Fuchsjaeger; Fiona J Gilbert; Thomas H Helbich; Karen Kinkel; Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Christiane K Kuhl; Ritse M Mann; Laura Martincich; Pietro Panizza; Federica Pediconi; Ruud M Pijnappel; Katja Pinker; Sophia Zackrisson; Gabor Forrai; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2018-08-09
Authors: Bo Ra Kwon; Jung Min Chang; Soo Yeon Kim; Su Hyun Lee; Sung Ui Shin; Ann Yi; Nariya Cho; Woo Kyung Moon Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2020-07-22 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Shahad A Ibraheem; Rozi Mahmud; Suraini Mohamad Saini; Hasyma Abu Hassan; Aysar Sabah Keiteb; Ahmed M Dirie Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-02-19