I agree with all you said--this article, unfortunately, is so typical of the junk that is published these days to try to advance an agenda under the guise of science--they obviously are U/Sing everything, and MOST of their U/S's are on PALPABLE masses! This is their desperation to build up numbers! There is absolutely no reason why a palpable mass should undergo U/S, as a simple needle aspiration will accomplish the same thing--distinguish cyst from solid--much less expensively (for those who care). Also, they conclude that it is a cost-effective technique, without ever providing a single mention of any cost data! They do provide a good discussion of limitations, however--this kind of work does not do much to advance your cause, and still leaves an ABSENCE of data to justify it, or to explain why my practice is doing as well as yours without it--another challenge I have yet to hear answered.