Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21212775›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology2011

Controversies in the management of pancreatic IPMN.

Masao Tanaka

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Pancreatic Cysts.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2018
    Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Could the burden of pancreatic cancer originate in childhood?World journal of gastroenterology · 2021
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Current best practice and controversies in the follow up of patients with asymptomatic branch duct IPMN of the pancreas.HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association · 2016
    Review
  12. Therapeutic Approach to Cystic Neoplasms of the Pancreas.Surgical oncology clinics of North America · 2016
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Current roles of endoscopy in the management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2015
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Masao TanakaDepartment of Surgery and Oncology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan. masaotan@med.kyushu-u.ac.jp

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although considerable progress has been made in our understanding of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas, some issues still remain to be resolved. Uncertainty exists regarding the classification of IPMNs. The necessity of the mixed-type category of IPMN and whether such lesions should be defined radiographically or histologically needs to be determined. The preoperative distinction of branch duct IPMNs from nonmucinous cysts should be further investigated so that potentially malignant lesions can be identified and management strategies guided effectively. The role and safety of cystic fluid analysis remains to be clarified in this context. With regard to the diagnosis of malignancy in branch duct IPMNs, criteria for identifying malignancy need to be re-evaluated. The presence of mural nodules is a very reliable predictor; however, controversy exists over the value of size as a reliable indicator. Criteria with increased specificity are needed, perhaps including histological subtype of lesion, to reduce the false-positive rate of the present criteria. Finally, the best modality and interval for surveillance of branch duct IPMNs requires determination because of its significance in terms of malignant transformation, development of distinct ductal adenocarcinoma and disease recurrence after resection.

Indexed as

Adenocarcinoma, MucinousCarcinoma, PapillaryCell Transformation, NeoplasticDiagnosis, DifferentialHumansJapanNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPancreasPancreatic NeoplasmsPractice Guidelines as TopicRadiographyTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.