Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29728746›Full record

ReviewDer Radiologe2018

[Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnostic workup of lymph nodes].

H-P Weskott

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

H-P WeskottUltraschall Ambulanz, Klinikum Siloah-Oststadt-Heidehaus, Klinikum Region Hannover, Stadionbrücke 4, 30459, Hannover, Deutschland. weskotthp@t-online.de.
Klinikum Region Hannover · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

clinical/methodical issueDaily tasks in sonographic diagnostics include detection and characterization of peripheral and abdominal lymph nodes. STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL

methodsIn addition to the B‑mode methods, color-coded Doppler sonography (CCDS) plays an important role in the evaluation of lymph nodes. METHODICAL INNOVATIONS: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) has become a standard procedure in vascular and organ diagnostics. Tissue perfusion can be recorded visually and retrospectively in real time using time-dependent intensity analysis. The contrast agent dosage depends primarily on the location of the lymph nodes and the type and frequency of the transducer. Vascular and tumor cell density, intranodal pressure due to increased vascular permeability and preservation or destruction of the capsule must be taken into account when interpreting the findings. PERFORMANCE: The indication for CEUS results from the B‑mode and CCDS findings and plays an important role especially in the verification of vitality before and after therapy. Uneven or apparently non-perfused areas allow a targeted puncture of vital tumor tissue. ACHIEVEMENTS: Especially in abdominal lymph nodes, CEUS has a high diagnostic reliability. It is not always possible to differentiate between inflamed lymph nodes and lymph nodes altered by lymphoma filtration. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: CEUS helps to better assess the dignity of lymph nodes by visualizing their micro- and macrovascularization. After frustrated puncture, vital areas can be specifically biopsied. CEUS is particularly valuable in assessing the success of therapy.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaLymph NodesHumansLymphatic MetastasisReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesContrast MediaColor-coded ultrasoundFollow-up careHodgkin lymphomaMalignant lymph nodesNon-Hodgkin lymphoma

Identifiers

PMID29728746
OpenAlexW2799369197

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.