ArticleMedicine2018
Evaluation of computed tomography vascular reconstruction for the localization diagnosis of perigastric mass.
Article in Medicine, 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.
- Intelligent Reconstruction Algorithm-Based Computed Tomography Images for Automatic Detection of Gastric Tumor.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of computed tomography (CT) vascular reconstruction in the localization diagnosis of perigastric mass.
methodsFifty-eight patients with pathologically detected perigastric mass underwent abdominal dynamic contrast-enhanced CT. CT vascular reconstructions were produced from arterial phase data using volume rendering (VR), multiplanar reconstruction (MPR), and maximal intensity projection (MIP). Image analysis was focused on the relationship between the mass, perigastric arteries, and the gastric wall. Localization diagnosis values were compared between CT vascular reconstruction and dynamic-enhanced CT images.
resultsAmong the 58 cases of perigastric mass, 41 cases originated from the stomach, 7 cases from the left liver lobe, 6 from the pancreas, 2 from lessor omental bursa, 1 from transverse mesocolon, and 1 from left adrenal gland. The accuracy of CT vascular reconstruction images in the localization diagnosis of perigastric mass was higher than that of dynamic-enhanced CT images (98.3% and 86.2%, respectively, P = .04). On the reference level, 35 (35/41) patients with stomach-originated masses showed the mass adjacent perigastric arteries pushed away from the stomach (arterial displacement sign), and 15 (15/17) patients with nonstomach-originated masses showed perigastric arteries between the mass and the stomach (arterial entrapment sign). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the localization diagnosis of perigastric mass with arterial displacement sign were 85.4%, 100%, 100%, and 73.9%, respectively, and with arterial entrapment sign, 88.2%, 100%, 100%, and 95.3%, respectively.
conclusionCT vascular reconstruction can clearly depict the relationship between perigastric mass and adjacent perigastric arteries, which may help us more accurately differentiate between stomach-originated and nonstomach-originated masses compared with original dynamic-enhanced CT images.
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.