Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26689209›Full record

ArticleSurgery today2016

Validity of the management strategy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm advocated by the international consensus guidelines 2012: a retrospective review.

Yusuke Watanabe, Kazuyoshi Nishihara, Yusuke Niina, Yuji Abe, Takao Amaike, Shin Kibe, Yusuke Mizuuchi, Daisuke Kakihara, Minoru Ono, Sadafumi Tamiya and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgery today, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yusuke WatanabeDepartment of Surgery, Kitakyushu Municipal Medical Center, 2-1-1 Bashaku, Kokurakita-ku, Kitakyushu, 802-0077, Japan. wyuusuke@surg1.med.kyushu-u.ac.jp.
Kazuyoshi NishiharaDepartment of Surgery, Kitakyushu Municipal Medical Center, 2-1-1 Bashaku, Kokurakita-ku, Kitakyushu, 802-0077, Japan.
Yusuke NiinaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kitakyushu Municipal Medical Center, 2-1-1 Bashaku, Kokurakita-ku, Kitakyushu, 802-0077, Japan.
Yuji AbeDepartment of Surgery, Kitakyushu Municipal Medical Center, 2-1-1 Bashaku, Kokurakita-ku, Kitakyushu, 802-0077, Japan.
Takao AmaikeDepartment of Surgery, Kitakyushu Municipal Medical Center, 2-1-1 Bashaku, Kokurakita-ku, Kitakyushu, 802-0077, Japan.
Shin KibeDepartment of Surgery, Kitakyushu Municipal Medical Center, 2-1-1 Bashaku, Kokurakita-ku, Kitakyushu, 802-0077, Japan.
Yusuke MizuuchiDepartment of Surgery, Kitakyushu Municipal Medical Center, 2-1-1 Bashaku, Kokurakita-ku, Kitakyushu, 802-0077, Japan.
Daisuke KakiharaDepartment of Radiology, Kitakyushu Municipal Medical Center, 2-1-1 Bashaku, Kokurakita-ku, Kitakyushu, 802-0077, Japan.
Minoru OnoDepartment of Radiology, Kitakyushu Municipal Medical Center, 2-1-1 Bashaku, Kokurakita-ku, Kitakyushu, 802-0077, Japan.
Sadafumi TamiyaDepartment of Pathology, Kitakyushu Municipal Medical Center, 2-1-1 Bashaku, Kokurakita-ku, Kitakyushu, 802-0077, Japan.
Satoshi ToyoshimaDepartment of Pathology, Kitakyushu Municipal Medical Center, 2-1-1 Bashaku, Kokurakita-ku, Kitakyushu, 802-0077, Japan.
Toru NakanoDepartment of Surgery, Kitakyushu Municipal Medical Center, 2-1-1 Bashaku, Kokurakita-ku, Kitakyushu, 802-0077, Japan.
Shoshu MitsuyamaDepartment of Surgery, Kitakyushu Municipal Medical Center, 2-1-1 Bashaku, Kokurakita-ku, Kitakyushu, 802-0077, Japan.
Kitakyushu Municipal Medical Center · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to investigate the validity of the management strategy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) advocated by the international consensus guidelines 2012 (ICG2012).

methodsThe medical records of 49 patients who underwent pancreatectomy for IPMN were retrospectively reviewed.

resultsAccording to preoperative imaging, 10 patients (20 %) had main-duct IPMNs, 20 (41 %) had mixed IPMNs, and 19 (39 %) had branch-duct IPMNs, with malignancy frequencies of 80, 15, and 37 %, respectively. Twenty-seven patients had high-risk stigmata and 21 had worrisome features, with malignancy frequencies of 59 and 10 %, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of high-risk stigmata for malignancy were 88, 65, 59, and 91 %, respectively. Lesions were malignant in 88 % of patients with an enhanced solid component, which was significantly correlated with the prevalence of malignancy (P < 0.01). However, of the 10 patients who underwent pancreatectomy solely due to a main pancreatic dilation of ≥10 mm, 9 (90 %) had benign IPMNs.

conclusionsMany mixed IPMNs defined according to ICG2012 are benign. Although the management strategy advocated by ICG2012 has been improved relative to the Sendai criteria, the different high-risk stigmata carry unequal weights. Consequently, ICG2012 remains suboptimal for predicting malignant IPMN.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAdenocarcinoma, MucinousAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalDiagnostic ImagingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPancreatectomyPancreatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesRiskHigh-risk stigmataInternational consensus guidelinesIntraductal papillary mucinous neoplasmsWorrisome feature

Identifiers

PMID26689209
OpenAlexW2280664730

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.