The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of Ductoscopy, Galactography, and Imaging Modalities for the Evaluation of Intraductal Lesions: A Critical Review
Open accessAbstract
Background: Today, in cases of nipple discharge of unclear origin, the abundance of diagnostic procedures - a ‚diagnostic dilemma' - becomes apparent, because unequivocal indications and a current, standardized examination sequence are presently not available. The diagnostic workup of patients with nipple discharge usually includes the clinical history, physical examination, mammography, ultrasonography, galactography, and nipple discharge cytology, but not ductoscopy. Methods: In this review we analyze and discuss the possible role of ductoscopy in evaluating intraductal pathologies and its combined use with diagnostic imaging modalities. For this purpose, we reviewed and compared the results of the radiological, pathological, and surgical studies independently. Conclusions: Currently, there is no solitary accurate modality to reach our definitive purpose. Being aware of the capability of each diagnostic modality may take us closer to our target. Therefore, adjunct and appropriate use of multiple imaging modalities and ductoscopy is necessary to evaluate patients with nipple discharge.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Early Diagnosis of Breast Cancer
Wang, L. (2017) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s17071572 · Cited by 549
25 Years of Contrast-Enhanced MRI: Developments, Current Challenges and Future Perspectives
Lohrke, J., Frenzel, T., Endrikat, J., Alves, F. C., Grist, T. M., Law, M., Lee, J. M., Leiner, T., Li, K.-C., Nikolaou, K., et al. (2016) · Advances in Therapy · doi:10.1007/s12325-015-0275-4 · Cited by 420
Screening for Breast Cancer in 2018—What Should We be Doing Today?
Seely, J. M., & Alhassan, T. (2018) · Current Oncology · doi:10.3747/co.25.3770 · Cited by 258
Qin, W., Zhu, W., Shi, H., Hewett, J. E., Ruhlen, R. L., MacDonald, R. S., Rottinghaus, G. E., Chen, Y.-C., & Sauter, E. R. (2009) · Nutrition and Cancer · doi:10.1080/01635580802404196 · Cited by 138
Breast biopsy techniques in a global setting—clinical practice review
Silva, E., Meschter, S., & Tan, M. P. (2023) · Translational Breast Cancer Research · doi:10.21037/tbcr-23-12 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Sarica, O., Ozturk, E., Demirkurek, H. C., & Uluc, F.
- Venue
- Breast Care
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 2013
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 348-354
- ISSN
- 1661-3791 (ISSN-L)
- 1661-3805
- OpenAlex
- W2115783213
- Cited by
- 356
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Ductoscopy, Galactography, and Imaging Modalities for the Evaluation of Intraductal Lesions: A Critical Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000355833
- The paper
- Sarica, O., Ozturk, E., Demirkurek, H. C., & Uluc, F. (2013). Comparison of Ductoscopy, Galactography, and Imaging Modalities for the Evaluation of Intraductal Lesions: A Critical Review. Breast Care. https://doi.org/10.1159/000355833
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
