ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2018
Endoscopic Ultrasound Imaging for Differential Diagnosis of Pancreatic Neoplasms: A 7-Year Study in a Chinese Population.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic ultrasound features of pancreatic solid lesions: Descriptive and predictive analysis on a multicenter sample.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
- Pancreatic Tumorigenesis: Precursors, Genetic Risk Factors and Screening.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Review
- Emerging Role of Exosomal-Derived Long Noncoding RNAs in Human PDAC.Visceral medicine · 2022Review
- Early screening and diagnosis strategies of pancreatic cancer: a comprehensive review.Cancer communications (London, England) · 2021Review
- Endoscopic ultrasonography guided transgastric trans-portal system fine needle aspiration for diagnosing pancreatic head and uncinate process malignancy.Annals of translational medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Currently, non-invasive methods for screening pancreatic cancer are lacking. There is little information regarding whether endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) imaging has a discriminatory ability for detecting benign and malignant pancreatic neoplasms. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the demographic, clinicopathologic, and EUS features and follow-up information. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 58 patients with pancreatic neoplasms who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) over a 7-year period (2009-2016) at our Department of Digestive Diseases were enrolled in our study. RESULTS Of the 58 patients, 38 (65.5%) were diagnosed with malignant pancreatic neoplasms and 20 (34.5%) were benign ones. Of all the EUS findings, size of neoplasm (P=0.037) and regularity of margin (P=0.011) were significantly different between malignant and benign pancreatic neoplasms. However, age, sex, location, echo pattern, and dilation of main pancreatic duct did not show any significant difference (P>0.05). Size combined with regularity to detect malignant pancreatic neoplasms showed the following diagnostic values: sensitivity, 73.68%; specificity, 90%; positive predictive value, 76.60%; negative predictive value 81.82%; and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.887 (95% CI: 0.777-0.955, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS Our results showed the high value of EUS for differentiating malignant pancreatic neoplasms from benign ones. Due to this and its non-invasive nature, EUS should be the first-line method for detection of neoplastic pancreatic 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.