↓ Skip to main content

Meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and core needle biopsy in diagnosing axillary lymph node metastasis

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Surgery, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
twitter
36 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and core needle biopsy in diagnosing axillary lymph node metastasis
Published in
British Journal of Surgery, July 2018
DOI 10.1002/bjs.10920
Pubmed ID
Authors

I. Balasubramanian, C. A. Fleming, M. A. Corrigan, H. P. Redmond, M. J. Kerin, A. J. Lowery

Abstract

Axillary lymph node status remains a significant prognostic indicator in breast cancer. Here, the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (US-FNA) and ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy (US-CNB) in axillary staging was compared. A comprehensive search was undertaken of all published studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of US-CNB and US-FNA of axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer. Studies were included if raw data were available on the diagnostic performance of both US-FNA and US-CNB, and compared with final histology results. Relevant data were extracted from each study for systematic review. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of US-FNA and US-CNB were obtained using a bivariable model. Summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) graphs were created to confirm diagnostic accuracy. Data on a total of 1353 patients from six studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. US-CNB was superior to US-FNA in diagnosing axillary nodal metastases: sensitivity 88 (95 per cent c.i. 84 to 91) versus 74 (70 to 78) per cent respectively. Both US-CNB and US-FNA had a high specificity of 100 per cent. Reported complication rates were significantly higher for US-CNB compared with US-FNA (7·1 versus 1·3 per cent; P < 0·001). Conversely, the requirement for repeat diagnostic procedures was significantly greater for US-FNA (4·0 versus 0·5 per cent; P < 0·001). US-CNB is a superior diagnostic technique to US-FNA for axillary staging in breast cancer.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 19%
Student > Postgraduate 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Librarian 3 11%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 56%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 5 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 69. 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 23 November 2018.
All research outputs
#307,577
of 15,405,068 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Surgery
#132
of 3,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,759
of 276,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Surgery
#13
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,405,068 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,799 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 276,003 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.