ReviewEuropean radiology2016
Which is the best current guideline for the diagnosis and management of cystic pancreatic neoplasms? An appraisal using evidence-based practice methods.
Review in European radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Validation of the American Gastroenterological Association guidelines on management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms: more than 5 years of follow-up.European radiology · 2018Guideline
- Comparison between MRI with MR cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasonography for differentiating malignant from benign mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas.European radiology · 2018Article
- Effect of p53 on pancreatic cancer-glucose tolerance abnormalities by regulating transglutaminase 2 in resistance to glucose metabolic stress.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- Fate of small pancreatic cysts (<3 cm) after long-term follow-up: analysis of significant radiologic characteristics and proposal of follow-up strategies.European radiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimCystic pancreatic neoplasms (CPNs) are an increasingly diagnosed entity. Their heterogeneity poses complex diagnostic and management challenges. Despite frequently encountering these entities, particularly in the context of the increased imaging of patients in modern medicine, doctors have to rely on incomplete and ambiguous published literature. The aim of this project was to review the guidelines relating to CPNs using evidence-based practice (EBP) methods.
methodsA search of both the primary and secondary literature was performed. Five sets of guidelines were identified which were then methodologically appraised by the AGREE II instrument, a validated and widely utilised tool for guideline development assessment.
resultsThe 2014 'Italian consensus guidelines for the diagnostic work-up and follow-up of cystic pancreatic neoplasms' were found to be the most methodologically sound guidelines, on the basis of both the overall score and average weighted domain score.
conclusionsThe current best guidelines were identified. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument can be used for retrospective review of published guidelines or as a roadmap for guideline-writing groups. All guidelines found were methodologically limited. Further longitudinal/prospective studies are required to improve the level of evidence. KEY POINTS: • Cystic pancreatic neoplasms (CPNs) are an increasingly encountered entity in modern medicine. • Clinical uncertainty remains with regard to optimal diagnostic and management strategies. • The Italian consensus guidelines for cystic pancreatic neoplasms are currently the best guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26762943What 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.