Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29134352›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2018

Accuracy of apparent diffusion coefficient in differentiating pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour from intrapancreatic accessory spleen.

Ankur Pandey, Pallavi Pandey, Mounes Aliyari Ghasabeh, Farnaz Najmi Varzaneh, Pegah Khoshpouri, Nannan Shao, Manijeh Zargham Pour, Daniel Fadaei Fouladi, Ralph H Hruban, Anne Marie O'Broin-Lennon and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. MR Imaging of the Perihepatic Space.Korean journal of radiology · 2021
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Ankur PandeyRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N Wolfe St, Room 143, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Pallavi PandeyRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N Wolfe St, Room 143, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Mounes Aliyari GhasabehRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N Wolfe St, Room 143, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Farnaz Najmi VarzanehRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N Wolfe St, Room 143, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Pegah KhoshpouriRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N Wolfe St, Room 143, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Nannan ShaoRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N Wolfe St, Room 143, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Manijeh Zargham PourRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N Wolfe St, Room 143, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Daniel Fadaei FouladiRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N Wolfe St, Room 143, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Ralph H HrubanDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, 1550 Orleans Street, Baltimore, MD, 21231, USA.
Anne Marie O'Broin-LennonDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Ihab R KamelRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N Wolfe St, Room 143, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. ikamel@jhmi.edu.
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate and compare the accuracy of absolute apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and normalised ADC (lesion-to-spleen ADC ratio) in differentiating pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour (NET) from intrapancreatic accessory spleen (IPAS).

methodsStudy included 62 patients with the diagnosis of pancreatic NET (n=51) or IPAS (n=11). Two independent reviewers measured ADC on all lesions and spleen. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis to differentiate NET from IPAS was performed and compared for absolute and normalised ADC. Inter-reader reliability for the two methods was assessed.

resultsPancreatic NET had significantly higher absolute ADC (1.431x10

conclusionBoth absolute and normalised ADC allow clinically relevant differentiation of pancreatic NET and IPAS. KEY POINTS: • Imaging overlaps between IPASs and pancreatic-NETs lead to unnecessary procedures including pancreatectomy. • Uniquely low ADC of spleen allows differentiating IPASs from pancreatic NETs. • Both absolute-ADC and normalised-ADC (lesion-to-spleen ADC-ratio) demonstrate high accuracy in differentiating IPASs from NETs. • Both methods demonstrate excellent inter-reader reliability.

Indexed as

Diagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNeuroendocrine TumorsPancreatic NeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSpleenSplenic DiseasesDiffusion MRIMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeuroendocrine TumoursPancreasSpleen

Identifiers

PMID29134352
OpenAlexW2768257268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.