ArticlePloS one2016
Incremental Value of MR Cholangiopancreatography in Diagnosis of Biliary Atresia.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Key postnatal magnetic resonance characteristics for differentiating cystic biliary atresia from choledochal cyst.European radiology · 2024Article
- Preoperative imaging findings to predict 2-year native liver survival after the Kasai procedure in patients with biliary atresia.European radiology · 2024Article
- [Jaundice in Young Children].Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2022Review
- [Diagnostic Imaging of Biliary Atresia].Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2022Review
- The Value of Hepatic Scintigraphy in the Diagnosis of Biliary Atresia.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- Ultrasound for the Diagnosis of Biliary Atresia: From Conventional Ultrasound to Artificial Intelligence.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Article
- Comparison of Compressed Sensing and Gradient and Spin-Echo in Breath-Hold 3D MR Cholangiopancreatography: Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Periportal thickening on magnetic resonance imaging for hepatic fibrosis in infantile cholestasis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Article
- Neonatal Jaundice.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2019Review
- [Differential diagnoses of biliary tract diseases : Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging].Der Radiologe · 2019Review
- Design and validation of a noninvasive diagnostic criteria for biliary atresia in infants based on the STROBE compliant.Medicine · 2019Observational
- MRI-based decision tree model for diagnosis of biliary atresia.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the incremental value of a combination of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and ultrasonography (US), compared to US alone, for diagnosing biliary atresia (BA) in neonates and young infants with cholestasis. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe institutional review board approved this retrospective study. The US and MRCP studies were both performed on 64 neonates and young infants with BA (n = 41) or without BA (non-BA) (n = 23). Two observers reviewed independently the US alone set and the combined US and MRCP set, and graded them using a five-point scale. Diagnostic performance was compared using pairwise comparison of the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value were assessed.
resultsThe diagnostic performance (the area under the ROC curve [Az]) for diagnosing BA improved significantly after additional review of MRCP images; Az improved from 0.688 to 0.901 (P = .015) for observer 1 and from 0.676 to 0.901 (P = .011) for observer 2. The accuracy of MRCP combined with US (observer 1, 95% [61/64]; observer 2 92% [59/64]) and PPV (observer 1, 95% [40/42]; observer 2 91% [40/44]) were significantly higher than those of US alone for both observers (accuracy: observer 1, 73% [47/64], P = 0.003; observer 2, 72% [46/64], P = 0.004; PPV: observer 1, 76% [35/46], P = 0.016; observer 2, 76% [34/45], P = 0.013). Interobserver agreement of confidence levels was good for US alone (ĸ = 0.658, P < .001) and was excellent for the combined set of US and MRCP (ĸ = 0.929, P < .001).
conclusionBetter diagnostic performance was achieved with the combination of US and MRCP than with US alone for the evaluation of BA in neonates and young infants with cholestasis.
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.