Patient perception of meander-like versus radial breast ultrasound

IF 1.3 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Ultrasound International Open Pub Date : 2024-04-22 DOI:10.1055/a-2282-9193
P. Brasier-Lutz, C. Jäggi-Wickes, Sabine Schädelin, R. Burian, C. Schoenenberger, R. Zanetti-Dällenbach
{"title":"Patient perception of meander-like versus radial breast\n ultrasound","authors":"P. Brasier-Lutz, C. Jäggi-Wickes, Sabine Schädelin, R. Burian, C. Schoenenberger, R. Zanetti-Dällenbach","doi":"10.1055/a-2282-9193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Background Radial breast ultrasound scanning (r-US) and commonly used\n meander-like ultrasound scanning (m-US) have recently been shown to be equally\n sensitive and specific with regard to the detection of breast malignancies. As\n patient satisfaction has a strong influence on patient compliance and thus on\n the quality of health care, we compare here the two US scanning techniques with\n regard to patient comfort during breast ultrasound (BUS) and analyze whether the\n patient has a preference for either scanning technique. \n Materials and Methods Symptomatic and asymptomatic women underwent both\n m-US and r-US scanning by two different examiners. Patient comfort and\n preference were assessed using a visual analog scale-based (VAS) questionnaire\n and were compared using a Mann-Whitney U test.\n Results Analysis of 422 VAS-based questionnaires showed that perceived\n comfort with r-US (r-VAS 8 cm, IQR [5.3, 9.1]) was significantly higher compared\n to m-US (m-VAS 5.6 cm, IQR [5.2, 7.4]) (p < 0.001). 53.8% of patients had no\n preference, 44.3% of patients clearly preferred r-US, whereas only 1.9% of\n patients preferred m-US. Conclusion: Patients experience a higher level of\n comfort with r-US and favor r-US over m-US. As the diagnostic accuracy of r-US\n has been shown to be comparable to that of m-US and the time required for\n examination is shorter, a switch from m-US to r-US in routine clinical practice\n might be beneficial. R-US offers considerable potential to positively affect\n patient compliance but also to save examination time and thus costs.","PeriodicalId":44852,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasound International Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ultrasound International Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2282-9193","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Radial breast ultrasound scanning (r-US) and commonly used meander-like ultrasound scanning (m-US) have recently been shown to be equally sensitive and specific with regard to the detection of breast malignancies. As patient satisfaction has a strong influence on patient compliance and thus on the quality of health care, we compare here the two US scanning techniques with regard to patient comfort during breast ultrasound (BUS) and analyze whether the patient has a preference for either scanning technique. Materials and Methods Symptomatic and asymptomatic women underwent both m-US and r-US scanning by two different examiners. Patient comfort and preference were assessed using a visual analog scale-based (VAS) questionnaire and were compared using a Mann-Whitney U test. Results Analysis of 422 VAS-based questionnaires showed that perceived comfort with r-US (r-VAS 8 cm, IQR [5.3, 9.1]) was significantly higher compared to m-US (m-VAS 5.6 cm, IQR [5.2, 7.4]) (p < 0.001). 53.8% of patients had no preference, 44.3% of patients clearly preferred r-US, whereas only 1.9% of patients preferred m-US. Conclusion: Patients experience a higher level of comfort with r-US and favor r-US over m-US. As the diagnostic accuracy of r-US has been shown to be comparable to that of m-US and the time required for examination is shorter, a switch from m-US to r-US in routine clinical practice might be beneficial. R-US offers considerable potential to positively affect patient compliance but also to save examination time and thus costs.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
患者对蜿蜒式与放射式乳腺超声波的看法
背景 放射乳腺超声扫描(r-US)和常用的迂回式超声扫描(m-US)最近被证明在检测乳腺恶性肿瘤方面具有同样的敏感性和特异性。由于患者的满意度对患者的依从性和医疗质量有很大影响,我们在此比较了两种超声扫描技术在乳腺超声(BUS)检查过程中患者的舒适度,并分析患者是否偏好其中一种扫描技术。 材料和方法 有症状和无症状的女性均接受了由两名不同检查人员进行的 m-US 和 r-US 扫描。使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)问卷对患者的舒适度和偏好进行评估,并使用 Mann-Whitney U 检验进行比较。结果 对 422 份基于 VAS 的问卷进行的分析表明,与 m-US(m-VAS 5.6 厘米,IQR [5.2, 7.4])相比,r-US(r-VAS 8 厘米,IQR [5.3,9.1])的舒适度明显更高(p < 0.001)。53.8%的患者没有偏好,44.3%的患者明确偏好r-US,而只有1.9%的患者偏好m-US。结论:与 m-US 相比,患者对 r-US 的舒适度更高,更青睐 r-US。由于 r-US 的诊断准确性已被证明与 m-US 相当,且检查所需时间更短,因此在常规临床实践中将 m-US 改为 r-US 可能会带来益处。R-US 具有相当大的潜力,不仅能对患者的依从性产生积极影响,还能节省检查时间和费用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ultrasound International Open
Ultrasound International Open RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Congenital coarctation of the aorta: Role of peripheral vascular ultrasound in young hypertensive patients. Lung ultrasound score for the assessment of lung aeration in ARDS patients: comparison of two approaches. Pancreatic ultrasound: An update of measurements, reference values, and variations of the pancreas. Insights Into Modern Undergraduate Ultrasound Education: Prospective Comparison of Digital and Analog Teaching Resources in a Flipped Classroom Concept - The DIvAN Study. Ultrasound elastography: a brief clinical history of an evolving technique.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1