ReviewGastroenterology research and practice2017
Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Cholangiography: Practical Tips and Clinical Indications for Biliary Disease Management.
Review in Gastroenterology research and practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- All About Multiparametric MRI Evaluation in Biliary Tree Complications After Liver Transplant.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Imaging and management of complications post biliary-enteric anastomosis.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Gadoxetic acid magnetic-enhanced resonance imaging in the diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Review
- Isolated aberrant right cysticohepatic duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Evaluation and treatment challenges of a severe postoperative complication associated with an extremely rare anatomical variant.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2020Article
- Metal-Based Complexes as Pharmaceuticals for Molecular Imaging of the Liver.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Gd-EOB-DTP-enhanced MRC in the preoperative percutaneous management of intra and extrahepatic biliary leakages: does it matter?Gland surgery · 2019Review
- [Passive and active magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography : Technique, indications, and typical anatomy].Der Radiologe · 2019Review
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
Since its introduction, MRCP has been improved over the years due to the introduction of several technical advances and innovations. It consists of a noninvasive method for biliary tree representation, based on heavily T2-weighted images. Conventionally, its protocol includes two-dimensional single-shot fast spin-echo images, acquired with thin sections or with multiple thick slabs. In recent years, three-dimensional T2-weighted fast-recovery fast spin-echo images have been added to the conventional protocol, increasing the possibility of biliary anatomy demonstration and leading to a significant benefit over conventional 2D imaging. A significant innovation has been reached with the introduction of hepatobiliary contrasts, represented by gadoxetic acid and gadobenate dimeglumine: they are excreted into the bile canaliculi, allowing the opacification of the biliary tree. Recently, 3D interpolated T1-weighted spoiled gradient echo images have been proposed for the evaluation of the biliary tree, obtaining images after hepatobiliary contrast agent administration. Thus, the acquisition of these excretory phases improves the diagnostic capability of conventional MRCP-based on T2 acquisitions. In this paper, technical features of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography are briefly discussed; main diagnostic tips of hepatobiliary phase are showed, emphasizing the benefit of enhanced cholangiography in comparison with conventional MRCP.
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.