Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27725761›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2016

Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography with Quantitative Analysis allows Differentiation of Renal Tumor Histotypes.

Di Sun, Cong Wei, Yi Li, Qijie Lu, Wei Zhang, Bing Hu

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

6 authors.

Di SunDepartment of Ultrasound in Medicine, Shanghai Jiao tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, China.
Cong WeiDepartment of Ultrasound in Medicine, Shanghai Jiao tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, China.
Yi LiDepartment of Ultrasound in Medicine, Shanghai Jiao tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, China.
Qijie LuDepartment of Ultrasound in Medicine, Shanghai Jiao tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, China.
Wei ZhangDepartment of Ultrasound in Medicine, Shanghai Jiao tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, China.
Bing HuDepartment of Ultrasound in Medicine, Shanghai Jiao tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Totally 85 patients with 93 renal lesions who underwent contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) were retrospectively studied with quantitative analysis to evaluate its value in the differential diagnosis of renal tumor histotypes. CEUS characteristics were analysed including the enhancement patterns, peak intensity, homogeneity of enhancement, and pseudocapsule. Quantitative parameters of peak intensity (P) and time to peak (TP) were measured with QontraXt software, and the index "relative enhancement percentage" ΔP% and "difference in TP between tumor and cortex" ΔTP were used to quantify the CEUS features of renal tumors. There are significant difference in CEUS features between the 46 clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC) and other types of renal tumors, including 17 low malignant lesions, 11 urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis, and 19 renal angiomyolipoma. The differences lie in the peak intensity, the homogeneity, the time of wash-in, peak, clearance and presence of pseudocapsule. The ΔTP and ΔP% of the CCRCC is significantly different from other tumors. With "fast to peak + high peak intensity" as the main criterion, assisted with "heterogeneous enhancement" and "fast wash-in" as the secondary criteria, the diagnostic accuracy of CCRCC is 91.4%, demonstrating quantitative CEUS imaging is highly valuable in differentiating CCRCC from other tumors.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAngiomyolipomaCarcinomaDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedKidney NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID27725761
PMCPMC5057121

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.