↓ Skip to main content

Breast ultrasound: recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging

Overview of attention for article published in Insights into Imaging, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#32 of 1,282)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
13 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
99 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
275 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
Breast ultrasound: recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging
Published in
Insights into Imaging, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s13244-018-0636-z
Pubmed ID
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, for the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) , with language review by Europa Donna–The European Breast Cancer Coalition

Abstract

This article summarises the information that should be provided to women and referring physicians about breast ultrasound (US). After explaining the physical principles, technical procedure and safety of US, information is given about its ability to make a correct diagnosis, depending on the setting in which it is applied. The following definite indications for breast US in female subjects are proposed: palpable lump; axillary adenopathy; first diagnostic approach for clinical abnormalities under 40 and in pregnant or lactating women; suspicious abnormalities at mammography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); suspicious nipple discharge; recent nipple inversion; skin retraction; breast inflammation; abnormalities in the area of the surgical scar after breast conserving surgery or mastectomy; abnormalities in the presence of breast implants; screening high-risk women, especially when MRI is not performed; loco-regional staging of a known breast cancer, when MRI is not performed; guidance for percutaneous interventions (needle biopsy, pre-surgical localisation, fluid collection drainage); monitoring patients with breast cancer receiving neo-adjuvant therapy, when MRI is not performed. Possible indications such as supplemental screening after mammography for women aged 40-74 with dense breasts are also listed. Moreover, inappropriate indications include screening for breast cancer as a stand-alone alternative to mammography. The structure and organisation of the breast US report and of classification systems such as the BI-RADS and consequent management recommendations are illustrated. Information about additional or new US technologies (colour-Doppler, elastography, and automated whole breast US) is also provided. Finally, five frequently asked questions are answered. • US is an established tool for suspected cancers at all ages and also the method of choice under 40. • For US-visible suspicious lesions, US-guided biopsy is preferred, even for palpable findings. • High-risk women can be screened with US, especially when MRI cannot be performed. • Supplemental US increases cancer detection but also false positives, biopsy rate and follow-up exams. • Breast US is inappropriate as a stand-alone screening method.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 275 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 275 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 31 11%
Student > Postgraduate 20 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 7%
Student > Master 18 7%
Other 16 6%
Other 58 21%
Unknown 113 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 9%
Unspecified 11 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 3%
Engineering 8 3%
Other 31 11%
Unknown 119 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 12 April 2023.
All research outputs
#1,016,901
of 25,698,912 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#32
of 1,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,219
of 342,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,698,912 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,282 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 342,937 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.