ArticleMedicine2015
Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasonography, Computed Tomography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Pancreas Cystic Lesions.
Article in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Pancreatic Cysts.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2018Guideline
- Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in assessment of detailed structures of pancreatic cystic neoplasms.World journal of gastroenterology · 2017Trial
- Anticipating pancreatic cancer diagnosis through early computerised tomography findings: An ongoing holy quest.United European gastroenterology journal · 2024Article
- Article
- A Comparison of Single Dimension and Volume Measurements in the Risk Stratification of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Predicting Factors for Pancreatic Malignancy with Computed Tomography and Endoscopic Ultrasonography in Chronic Pancreatitis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Diagnostic Yield of Transabdominal Ultrasonography for Evaluation of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions Compared with Endoscopic Ultrasonography.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Speckle reduction in ultrasound endoscopy using refraction based elevational angular compounding.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Comparison of imaging modalities for measuring the diameter of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas.Pancreatology : official journal of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) ... [et al.] · 2020Article
- Are pancreatic IPMN volumes measured on MRI images more reproducible than diameters? An assessment in a large single-institution cohort.European radiology · 2018Article
- Comparison between MRI with MR cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasonography for differentiating malignant from benign mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas.European radiology · 2018Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Consensus regarding which modality is optimal for the measurement of pancreas cystic lesions (PCLs) was not achieved although cyst size is important for clinical decisions. This study aimed to evaluate the properties of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) compared with computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in measuring the size of PCL.A total of 34 patients who underwent all 3 imaging modalities within 3 months before surgery were evaluated retrospectively. The size measured by each modality was compared with the pathologic size as a reference standard using Bland-Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).The mean size difference was 1.76 mm (ICC 0.86), 7.35 mm (ICC 0.95), and 8.65 mm (ICC 0.93) in EUS, CT, and MRI. EUS had the widest range of 95% limits of agreement (LOA) (-17.54 to +21.07), compared with CT (-6.21 to +20.91), and MRI (-6.82 to +24.12). The size by EUS tended to be read smaller in tail portion, while those by CT and MRI did not. When the size was more than 4 cm, the size on EUS was estimated to be smaller than on pathology (r = 0.492; P = 0.003).Although 3 modalities showed very good reliability for the size measurement on PCL compared with corresponding pathologic size, EUS had the lowest level of agreement, while CT showed the highest level among the 3 modalities. Therefore, the size estimated by EUS has to be interpreted with caution, especially when it is located in tail and relevantly large.
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.