ArticleWorld journal of radiology2015
Accuracy of magnetic resonance cholangiography compared to operative endoscopy in detecting biliary stones, a single center experience and review of literature.
Article in World journal of radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic Ultrasound for Routine Assessment in Idiopathic Acute Pancreatitis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019Pooled it
- Personalized Treatments for Functional Disorders of the Sphincter of Oddi: A Short Muscle with a Long History of Discussion and Controversies.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Radiomics-based diagnosis of acute cholangitis using non-contrast computed tomography: a preliminary study.Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Intermediate risk of choledocholithiasis: are we on the right path?Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023Article
- Routine preoperative MRCP in screening choledocholithiasis in acute cholecystitis compared to selective approach: a population-based study.Updates in surgery · 2023Article
- Diagnostic Value of Endoscopic Ultrasonography for Common Bile Duct Dilatation without Identifiable Etiology Detected from Cross-Sectional Imaging.Clinical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography enhanced by virtual reality as a novel tool to improve the understanding of biliary anatomy and the teaching of surgical trainees.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Management of cholelithiasis with choledocholithiasis: Endoscopic and surgical approaches.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Quantitative MRCP Imaging: Accuracy, Repeatability, Reproducibility, and Cohort-Derived Normative Ranges.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2020Article
- The Role of Laparoscopic Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Suspected Choledocholithiasis. A Single-Center Experience.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Article
- The accuracy of 3T magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in suspected choledocholithiasis.Polish journal of radiology · 2019Article
- Systematic review of safety and efficacy of therapeutic endoscopic-retrograde-cholangiopancreatography during pregnancy including studies of radiation-free therapeutic endoscopic-retrograde-cholangiopancreatography.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2018Article
- Is preoperative MRCP necessary for patients with gallstones? An analysis of the factors related to missed diagnosis of choledocholithiasis by preoperative ultrasound.BMC gastroenterology · 2015Article
- The role of gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography in the evaluation of postoperative bile duct injury: pictorial essay.Radiologia brasileiraArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare diagnostic sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) without contrast medium and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)/endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for biliary calculi.
methodsFrom January 2012 to December 2013, two-hundred-sixty-three patients underwent MRCP at our institution, all MRCP procedure were performed with the same machinery. In two-hundred MRCP was done for pure hepatobiliary symptoms and these patients are the subjects of this study. Among these two-hundred patients, one-hundred-eleven (55.5%) underwent ERCP after MRCP. The retrospective study design consisted in the systematic revision of all images from MRCP and EUS/ERCP performed by two radiologist with a long experience in biliary imaging, an experienced endoscopist and a senior consultant in Hepatobiliopancreatic surgery. A false positive was defined an MRCP showing calculi with no findings at EUS/ERCP; a true positive was defined as a concordance between MRCP and EUS/ERCP findings; a false negative was defined as the absence of images suggesting calculi at MRCP with calculi localization/extraction at EUS/ERCP and a true negative was defined as a patient with no calculi at MRCP ad at least 6 mo of asymptomatic follow-up. Biliary tree dilatation was defined as a common bile duct diameter larger than 6 mm in a patient who had an in situ gallbladder. A third blinded radiologist who examined the MRCP and ERCP data reviewed misdiagnosed cases. Once obtained overall data on sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) we divided patients in two groups composed of those having concordant MRCP and EUS/ERCP (Group A, 72 patients) and those having discordant MRCP and EUS/ERCP (Group B, 20 patients). Dataset comparisons had been made by the Student's t-test and χ (2) when appropriate.
resultsTwo-hundred patients (91 men, 109 women, mean age 67.6 years, and range 25-98 years) underwent MRCP. All patients attended regular follow-up for at least 6 mo. Morbidity and mortality related to MRCP were null. MRCP was the only exam performed in 89 patients because it did show only calculi into the gallbladder with no signs of the presence of calculi into the bile duct and symptoms resolved within a few days or after colecistectomy. The patients remained asymptomatic for at least 6 mo, and we assumed they were true negatives. One hundred eleven (53 men, 58 women, mean age 69 years, range 25-98 years) underwent ERCP following MRCP. We did not find any difference between the two groups in terms of race, age, and sex. The overall median interval between MRCP and ERCP was 9 d. In detecting biliary stones MRCP Sensitivity was 77.4%, Specificity 100% and Accuracy 80.5% with a PPV of 100% and NPV of 85%; EUS showed 95% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 95.5% accuracy with 100% PPV and 57.1% NPV. The association of EUS with ERCP performed at 100% in all the evaluated parameters. When comparing the two groups, we did not find any statistically significant difference regarding age, sex, and race. Similarly, we did not find any differences regarding the number of extracted stones: 116 stones in Group A (median 2, range 1 to 9) and 27 in Group B (median 2, range 1 to 4). When we compared the size of the extracted stones we found that the patients in Group B had significantly smaller stones: 14.16 ± 8.11 mm in Group A and 5.15 ± 2.09 mm in Group B; 95% confidence interval = 5.89-12.13, standard error = 1.577; P < 0.05. We also found that in Group B there was a significantly higher incidence of stones smaller than 5 mm: 36 in Group A and 18 in Group B, P < 0.05.
conclusionMajor finding of the present study is that choledocholithiasis is still under-diagnosed in MRCP. Smaller stones (< 5 mm diameter) are hardly visualized on MRCP.
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.