ArticleJournal of ultrasonography2017
Difficulties in differentiating the nature of ascites based on ultrasound imaging.
Article in Journal of ultrasonography, 2017. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between echogenicity of ascites and its classification in dogs.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Computed tomography in the diagnosis of intraperitoneal effusions: The role of texture analysis.Bosnian journal of basic medical sciences · 2021Article
- Point of care ultrasound in thoracic malignancy.Annals of translational medicine · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transabdominal ultrasound not always allows to determine the nature of ascites based solely on its characteristics.
aimThe aim of the study was to present difficulties in determining the nature of ascites using transabdominal ultrasonography solely based on extra-organ lesions as well as, after the inclusion of the overall abdominal assessment and the clinical picture. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 18 patients with non-neoplastic ascites and 62 patients with neoplastic ascites whose final diagnosis was based on cytological and histopathological findings were evaluated between 2005 and 2015. Abdominal ultrasound was performed to detect the presence of fluid in all accessible spaces, and, additionally, to determine the presence of potential peritoneal tumor implants as well as to evaluate the parietal peritoneum and the greater omentum. Different digital ultrasound machines equipped with 3-6 MHz and linear 7-12 MHz transducers were used in the study. Double-sided Fisher's exact test with statistical significance at
resultsStatistically significant differences between benign and neoplastic ascites were found for: anechoic peritoneal fluid (<0.0001); fluid and thickened omentum with smooth surface (<0.0001); fluid and thickened omentum with smooth surface and varices (0.01); fluid and thickened omentum with hypoechoic foci (0.049); fluid and thickened omentum with tumor implants (0.009). The inclusion of the overall assessment of abdominal organs and the clinical data allowed for an improvement in ultrasonographic diagnostic accuracy in benign and neoplastic ascites from 83.3% and 67.7% to 94.4% and 93.5%, respectively.
conclusionsWhen used alone, an assessment of acoustic fluid characteristics and extra-organ peritoneal lesions limits the possibility to differentiate between benign and malignant ascites. These results improve after the inclusion of sonographic assessment of all abdominal organs in combination with clinical data.
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.