Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26697446›Full record

ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2015

International consensus on the management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas.

Masao Tanaka

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Imaging Pancreatic Cysts with CT and MRI.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2017
    Review
  18. Dynamics of Fukuoka Criteria and Patient Management in Pancreatic Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms (IPMNs) During Follow-Up.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2017
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Masao TanakaShimonoseki City Hospital, 1-13-1 Koyo-cho, Shimonoseki 750-8520, Japan.
Shimonoseki City Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

International consensus guidelines for the management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas revised in 2012 (Fukuoka consensus) seem to be accepted well worldwide. Division of various factors to predict malignant transformation into two categories, i.e., "high-risk stigmata" and "worrisome features", is also accepted as practically useful for stratifying the risk factors. Our current interest resides in the development of noninvasive and/or invasive pancreatic cancer in areas of the pancreas distinct from IPMN. Invasive pancreatic cancers derived from and concomitant with IPMN should be distinguished to clarify the incidence of each entity, although some more definitive method for differentiation has to be devised in some cases where histological distinction is obscure. IPMN is a clue to early detection of pancreatic cancer. The optimal surveillance protocol for IPMN on observation should be determined in consideration of both of these different pancreatic cancers.

Indexed as

branch duct typeIntraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN)main duct typepancreatic cancer

Identifiers

PMID26697446
PMCPMC4671873
OpenAlexW2179482681

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.