ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2016
Accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound compared with conventional ultrasound in acute pancreatitis: Diagnosis and complication monitoring.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acute pancreatitis: A review of diagnosis, severity prediction and prognosis assessment from imaging technology, scoring system and artificial intelligence.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- [Imaging diagnostics in acute pancreatitis].Der Internist · 2021Review
- Multifactorial Scores and Biomarkers of Prognosis of Acute Pancreatitis: Applications to Research and Practice.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) has been used for diagnosing acute pancreatitis (AP), particularly severe acute pancreatitis (SAP). However, the diagnostic difference between CEUS and conventional ultrasonography (CUS) for AP and SAP has not been reported. The aim of the present study was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of CUS and CEUS for AP. A total of 196 patients clinically diagnosed with AP were selected. All patients underwent CUS, CEUS and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) within 72 h. CECT was considered the gold standard. Pancreatic size, peripancreatic fluid collection (PPFC) and splenic vessel complications were the variables observed by CUS and CEUS. The differences in the variables among the three methods were analyzed using the χ
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.