Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29476456›Full record

ArticleJournal of ultrasound2018

CEUS in the differential diagnosis between biliary sludge, benign lesions and malignant lesions.

Carla Serra, Cristina Felicani, Elena Mazzotta, Veronica Gabusi, Valentina Grasso, Antonio De Cinque, Lydia Giannitrapani, Maurizio Soresi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ultrasound, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. GB-RADS score, a possible role for CEUS?Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Carla SerraInterventional, Diagnostic and Therapeutic Ultrasound Unit, Department of Organ Insufficiency and Transplantation, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
Cristina FelicaniInterventional, Diagnostic and Therapeutic Ultrasound Unit, Department of Organ Insufficiency and Transplantation, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
Elena MazzottaInterventional, Diagnostic and Therapeutic Ultrasound Unit, Department of Organ Insufficiency and Transplantation, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
Veronica GabusiInterventional, Diagnostic and Therapeutic Ultrasound Unit, Department of Organ Insufficiency and Transplantation, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
Valentina GrassoInterventional, Diagnostic and Therapeutic Ultrasound Unit, Department of Organ Insufficiency and Transplantation, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
Antonio De CinqueInterventional, Diagnostic and Therapeutic Ultrasound Unit, Department of Organ Insufficiency and Transplantation, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
Lydia GiannitrapaniDivision of Internal Medicine, Biomedical Department of Internal Medicine and Specialties (Di.Bi.M.I.S.), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Maurizio SoresiDivision of Internal Medicine, Biomedical Department of Internal Medicine and Specialties (Di.Bi.M.I.S.), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy. maurizio.soresi@unipa.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7850-555X
IRCCS Azienda Ospedliero-Universitaria di Bologna Policlinico di Sant'Orsola · ITUniversity of Palermo · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeConventional grayscale ultrasound (US) is accurate in the diagnosis of gallbladder disease (GD), but in some cases, it is not decisive. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) improves the diagnostic accuracy of US. The primary objective of this study is to assess the reliability of CEUS in the diagnosis of sludge; the secondary objective is to assess the ability of CEUS to diagnose cancer.

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the US of 4137 patients positive for GD. In 43/4137 (1.04%), the use of could not discriminate between sludge and neoplasms. Then, we evaluated CEUS in only 39 of these patients, and in 4/43 (9%) cases it was not performable. After CEUS, the absence of enhancement was considered diagnostic for sludge, while contrast washout within 60 s diagnosed malignant lesions.

resultsAmong the 39 patients, 16 had biliary sludge and 23 had lesions of the gallbladder wall; 9 of these were carcinomas and 14 were benign tumors. The absence of enhancement was present in 16/16 patients with sludge and in 0/23 patients with lesions of the gallbladder (sensitivity and specificity 100%). Washout was within 60 s in 9/9 gallbladder carcinomas and 2/14 benign lesions (sensitivity 100%; specificity 85%).

conclusionsUS is confirmed to be accurate in the diagnosis of GD. In doubtful cases, CEUS is very accurate in biliary sludge diagnosis. An intralesional washout at 60 s is a pattern of malignancy that can orient towards a correct diagnosis, but it is limited by the presence of false positive results, especially for smaller lesions.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaUltrasonographyAdultAgedBileCarcinomaDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleGallbladderGallbladder DiseasesHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityContrast MediaBenign diseaseCEUSGallbladderMalignant diseaseSludgeUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID29476456
PMCPMC5972101
OpenAlexW2789549031

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.