ArticleGastroenterology research and practice2016
Molecular Analyses of Aspirated Cystic Fluid for the Differential Diagnosis of Cystic Lesions of the Pancreas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Gastroenterology research and practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Pancreatic Cysts.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2018Guideline
- Serum Carbohydrate Antigen 19-9 in Differential Diagnosis of Benign and Malignant Pancreatic Cystic Neoplasms: A Meta-Analysis.PloS one · 2016Pooled it
- Molecular Diagnosis of Cystic Neoplasms of the Pancreas: a Review.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2020Review
- Cyst fluid glucose: An alternative to carcinoembryonic antigen for pancreatic mucinous cysts.World journal of gastroenterology · 2019Review
- Glycopatterns and Glycoproteins Changes in MCN and SCN: A Prospective Cohort Study.BioMed research international · 2019Article
- Present status and perspectives of endosonography 2017 in gastroenterology.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2018Review
- The role of EUS-FNA in the evaluation of pancreatic cystic lesions.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
- A prospective study of endoscopic ultrasonography features, cyst fluid carcinoembryonic antigen, and fluid cytology for the differentiation of small pancreatic cystic neoplasms.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background. Researchers have evaluated various molecular tests for improving the differential diagnosis of cystic lesions of the pancreas. Methods. Six electronic databases were searched for articles on molecular tests for the diagnosis of pancreatic cysts. Measures of accuracy were extracted from selected articles and pooled by the random-effects model. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were used to analyze the overall accuracy of the molecular tests. Pooled sensitivity and specificity values [95% confidence intervals] are reported. Results. The systematic review included eight studies of 428 patients in total. We determined the sensitivities and specificities of tests for KRAS mutations (0.47 [0.39-0.54], 0.98 [0.93-0.99]) and loss of heterozygosity (0.63 [0.54-0.71], 0.76 [0.63-0.87]) for distinguishing mucinous from nonmucinous cysts, as well as the sensitivities and specificities of tests for KRAS mutations (0.59 [0.46-0.71], 0.78 [0.71-0.85]) and loss of heterozygosity (0.89 [0.78-0.96], 0.69 [0.60-0.76]) for differentiating malignant from benign cysts. Conclusion. Tests of KRAS mutations could confirm but not exclude a diagnosis of a mucinous or malignant pancreatic cyst.
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.