SynthesisMedicine2017
Value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in differential diagnosis of solid lesions of pancreas (SLP): A systematic review and a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The clinical utility and diagnostic performance of transabdominal contrast-enhanced ultrasonography using Sonazoid for pancreatic diseases: a narrative review.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2026Review
- The diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus contrast-enhanced computed tomography for pancreatic carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational cancer research · 2022Article
- Deep learning radiomics based on contrast-enhanced ultrasound images for assisted diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and chronic pancreatitis.BMC medicine · 2022Article
- Review
- Enhancement patterns in the venous phase of contrast-enhanced ultrasounds: diagnostic value for patients with solid pancreatic lesions.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2021Article
- Diagnostic Value of CEUS Prompting Liver Biopsy: Histopathological Correlation of Hepatic Lesions with Ambiguous Imaging Characteristics.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Ultrasound diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumors.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2020Review
- Contrast-Enhanced Transrectal Ultrasound in Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer.Current urology reports · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is considered a novel method for diagnosing pancreatic cancer, but currently, there is no conclusive evidence of its accuracy. Using CEUS in discriminating between pancreatic carcinoma and other pancreatic lesions, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS in predicting pancreatic tumours.
methodsRelevant studies were selected from the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Elsevier, CNKI, VIP, and WANFANG databases dating from January 2006 to May 2017. The following terms were used as keywords: "pancreatic cancer" OR "pancreatic carcinoma," "contrast-enhanced ultrasonography" OR "contrast-enhanced ultrasound" OR "CEUS," and "diagnosis." The selection criteria are as follows: pancreatic carcinomas diagnosed by CEUS while the main reference standard was surgical pathology or biopsy (if it involved a clinical diagnosis, particular criteria emphasized); SonoVue or Levovist was the contrast agent; true positive, false positive, false negative, and true negative rates were obtained or calculated to construct the 2 × 2 contingency table; English or Chinese articles; at least 20 patients were enrolled in each group. The Quality Assessment for Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy was employed to evaluate the quality of articles. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, summary receiver-operating characteristic curves, and the area under curve were evaluated to estimate the overall diagnostic efficiency. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with fixed-effect models.
resultsEight of 184 records were eligible for a meta-analysis after independent scrutinization by 2 reviewers. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratios were 0.86 (95% CI 0.81-0.90), 0.75 (95% CI 0.68-0.82), 3.56 (95% CI 2.64-4.78), 0.19 (95% CI 0.13-0.27), and 22.260 (95% CI 8.980-55.177), respectively. The area under the SROC curve was 0.9088.
conclusionCEUS has a satisfying pooled sensitivity and specificity for discriminating pancreatic cancer from other pancreatic lesions.
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.