Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25918584›Full record

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.

Francesco A Polistina, Mauro Frego, Marco Bisello, Emy Manzi, Antonella Vardanega, Bortolo Perin

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Endoscopic Ultrasound for Routine Assessment in Idiopathic Acute Pancreatitis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Intermediate risk of choledocholithiasis: are we on the right path?Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Francesco A PolistinaFrancesco A Polistina, Mauro Frego, Department of General Surgery, Suor Maria Teresa di Calcutta, Padova sud Hospital, 35043 Monselice, Italy.
Mauro FregoFrancesco A Polistina, Mauro Frego, Department of General Surgery, Suor Maria Teresa di Calcutta, Padova sud Hospital, 35043 Monselice, Italy.
Marco BiselloFrancesco A Polistina, Mauro Frego, Department of General Surgery, Suor Maria Teresa di Calcutta, Padova sud Hospital, 35043 Monselice, Italy.
Emy ManziFrancesco A Polistina, Mauro Frego, Department of General Surgery, Suor Maria Teresa di Calcutta, Padova sud Hospital, 35043 Monselice, Italy.
Antonella VardanegaFrancesco A Polistina, Mauro Frego, Department of General Surgery, Suor Maria Teresa di Calcutta, Padova sud Hospital, 35043 Monselice, Italy.
Bortolo PerinFrancesco A Polistina, Mauro Frego, Department of General Surgery, Suor Maria Teresa di Calcutta, Padova sud Hospital, 35043 Monselice, Italy.
Santa Maria Nuova Hospital · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Biliary stonesBiliary stricturesEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyEndoscopic ultrasoundMagnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography

Identifiers

PMID25918584
PMCPMC4404370
OpenAlexW2043318713

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.