ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2017
[Branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm - contra resection].
Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 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.
- [Pancreatic cystic neoplasms].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- [Pancreatic cystic space-occupying lesions-Diagnostics, treatment and follow-up care : Current recommendations taking the current German S3 guidelines on pancreatic cancer into account].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2022Review
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to improvements in imaging modalities the diagnosis of branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (BD-IPMN) has been significantly increased in recent years. A BD-IPMN is frequently diagnosed as an incidental finding in asymptomatic patients. The optimal management of BD-IPMN is the subject of controversial discussions. Numerous studies have shown that an individualized therapeutic strategy with a follow-up observation of most BD-IPMNs is feasible and safe, considering age, comorbidities and patient preference. An accurate evaluation of BD-IPMN with a detailed anamnesis, high-resolution imaging techniques and endoscopic ultrasound is necessary. Symptomatic patients as well as patients with so-called high-risk stigmata should undergo resection. Asymptomatic patients with so-called worrisome features can either undergo surveillance or surgical resection, taking age and comorbidities into account. For BD-IPMN patients without high-risk stigmata and worrisome features and showing no symptoms, surveillance of the pancreatic lesion is the preferred approach. The high prevalence of BD-IPMN, limitations in differential diagnostics, an overestimation of the risk of malignancy due to an overrepresentation of symptomatic and suspected BD-IPMN in resected cohorts, an overestimated role of BD-IPMN as precursor lesions for pancreatic carcinoma and evidence of the safety of follow-up surveillance, underline the enormous importance of surveillance. Based on this and considering the background of a notable mortality and morbidity of pancreatic surgery, aggressive management with prophylactic surgical resection is not justified for all BD-IPMN, in particular for low-risk 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.