ReviewDer Radiologe2018
[Misty mesentery : Mesenteric panniculitis and associated processes].
Review in Der Radiologe, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Inflammatory and infectious abdominal peritoneal and mesenterial processes].Der Radiologe · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSclerosing mesenteritis (SM) and mesenteric panniculitis are rare processes of the mesentery which pose a major clinical and imaging challenge. This review article attempts to introduce a systematic nomenclature to address typical symptoms, imaging and major differential diagnoses.
resultsSM with its subtypes-mesenteric lipodystrophy, panniculitis and retractile mesenteritis-is a chronic process with a very diverse and heterogeneous clinical appearance. The typical radiological characteristics ("misty mesentery", increased lymph nodes, pseudocapsule and "fat halo") are also not very specific. A link between SM and malignant diseases is not proven, but there is controversial discussion. Therefore, if there are doubts about the diagnosis, further examinations and a biopsy are desired.
conclusionWhen diagnosing SM, "red flags", i. e. characteristics that are atypical for SM in imaging, should be considered. In case of ambiguous imaging, differential diagnostics should also consider malignant diseases and exclude them.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29222586What 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.