Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28632786›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance, computed tomography and contrast enhanced ultrasound in radiological multimodality assessment of peribiliary liver metastases.

Vincenza Granata, Roberta Fusco, Orlando Catalano, Antonio Avallone, Raffaele Palaia, Gerardo Botti, Fabiana Tatangelo, Francesco Granata, Marco Cascella, Francesco Izzo and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Radiological assessment of secondary biliary tree lesions: an update.The Journal of international medical research · 2020
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Vincenza GranataDivision of Radiology, "Istituto Nazionale Tumori - IRCCS - Fondazione G. Pascale", Naples, Italy.
Roberta FuscoDivision of Radiology, "Istituto Nazionale Tumori - IRCCS - Fondazione G. Pascale", Naples, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0469-9969
Orlando CatalanoDivision of Radiology, "Istituto Nazionale Tumori - IRCCS - Fondazione G. Pascale", Naples, Italy.
Antonio AvalloneDivision of Abdominal Oncology, "Istituto Nazionale Tumori - IRCCS - Fondazione G. Pascale", Naples, Italy.
Raffaele PalaiaDivision of Hepatobiliary Surgical Oncology, "Istituto Nazionale Tumori - IRCCS - Fondazione G. Pascale", Naples, Italy.
Gerardo BottiDivision of Diagnostic Pathology, "Istituto Nazionale Tumori - IRCCS - Fondazione G. Pascale", Naples, Italy.
Fabiana TatangeloDivision of Diagnostic Pathology, "Istituto Nazionale Tumori - IRCCS - Fondazione G. Pascale", Naples, Italy.
Francesco GranataDepartement of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, University of Cassino and Southern Lazio, Cassino, Italy.
Marco CascellaDivision of Anesthesia, Endoscopy and Cardiology, "Istituto Nazionale Tumori - IRCCS - Fondazione G. Pascale", Naples, Italy.
Francesco IzzoDivision of Hepatobiliary Surgical Oncology, "Istituto Nazionale Tumori - IRCCS - Fondazione G. Pascale", Naples, Italy.
Antonella PetrilloDivision of Radiology, "Istituto Nazionale Tumori - IRCCS - Fondazione G. Pascale", Naples, Italy.
Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS "Fondazione G. Pascale" · ITUniversità degli studi di Cassino e del Lazio Meridionale · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe compared diagnostic performance of Magnetic Resonance (MR), Computed Tomography (CT) and Ultrasound (US) with (CEUS) and without contrast medium to identify peribiliary metastasis.

methodsWe identified 35 subjects with histological proven peribiliary metastases who underwent CEUS, CT and MR study. Four radiologists evaluated the presence of peribiliary lesions, using a 4-point confidence scale. Echogenicity, density and T1-Weigthed (T1-W), T2-W and Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI) signal intensity as well as the enhancement pattern during contrast studies on CEUS, CT and MR so as hepatobiliary-phase on MRI was assessed.

resultsAll lesions were detected by MR. CT detected 8 lesions, while US/CEUS detected one lesion. According to the site of the lesion, respect to the bile duct and hepatic parenchyma: 19 (54.3%) were periductal, 15 (42.8%) were intra-periductal and 1 (2.8%) was periductal-intrahepatic. According to the confidence scale MRI had the best diagnostic performance to assess the lesion. CT obtained lower diagnostic performance. There was no significant difference in MR signal intensity and contrast enhancement among all metastases (p>0.05). There was no significant difference in CT density and contrast enhancement among all metastases (p>0.05).

conclusionsMRI is the method of choice for biliary tract tumors but it does not allow a correct differential diagnosis among different histological types of metastasis. The presence of biliary tree dilatation without hepatic lesions on CT and US/CEUS study may be an indirect sign of peribiliary metastases and for this reason the patient should be evaluated by MRI.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingTomography, X-Ray ComputedUltrasonographyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiliary Tract NeoplasmsBilirubinCA-19-9 AntigenCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedBilirubinCA-19-9 Antigen

Identifiers

PMID28632786
PMCPMC5478136
OpenAlexW2675883210

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.