ReviewCurrent gastroenterology reports2013
Diagnostic evaluation of solid pancreatic masses.
Review in Current gastroenterology reports, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Evaluation of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Versus Percutaneous Ultrasound-Guided Core Needle Biopsy.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2023Article
- Pancreatic cancer, autoimmune or chronic pancreatitis, beyond tissue diagnosis: Collateral imaging and clinical characteristics may differentiate them.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023Review
- Bile-volatile organic compounds in the diagnostics of pancreatic cancer and biliary obstruction: A prospective proof-of-concept study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Primary B Cell Lymphoma of the Pancreas.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2020Review
- Preoperative contrast-enhanced computed tomographic characterisation of pancreatic cystic lesions: A prospective study.SA journal of radiology · 2019Article
- Differentiation of benign and malignant solid pancreatic masses using magnetic resonance elastography with spin-echo echo planar imaging and three-dimensional inversion reconstruction: a prospective study.European radiology · 2018Article
- The value of liver magnetic resonance imaging in patients with findings of resectable pancreatic cancer on computed tomography.Singapore medical journal · 2016Article
- [Ductal adenocarcinoma and unusual differential diagnosis].Der Radiologe · 2016Review
- Imaging preoperatively for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Determining the etiology of a solid pancreatic lesion is a critical first step toward developing an appropriate treatment plan for patients with a benign or malignant pancreatic mass. Technological advances in cross-sectional and endoscopic imaging modalities offer pancreatic imaging options with degrees of resolution that were not available even 15-20 years ago. In most cases, the nature of a solid pancreatic mass can be determined using computerized tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration. Knowledge about the basics of these modalities, as well as their strengths and limitations, plays an important role in understanding how patients with solid pancreatic masses should be evaluated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.