ReviewDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2018
Imaging features of bile duct adenoma: case series and review of literature.
Review in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Magnetic resonance imaging features of intrahepatic bile duct adenoma: a 10-year retrospective study.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Article
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings of an Intrahepatic Bile Duct Adenoma: A Case Report.Cureus · 2022Article
- Bile duct adenoma: imaging features and radiologic-pathologic correlation.Japanese journal of radiology · 2020Article
- Imaging features of intrahepatic bile duct adenoma in MRI.Translational cancer research · 2020Article
- Early detection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.Japanese journal of radiology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to evaluate the imaging features of bile duct adenoma (BDA) on ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
methodsRetrospective search in our institution database was performed for histologically confirmed BDA. Their imaging studies before histologic confirmation were reviewed. The search identified seven adults (mean age, 52.9 years) with histologically proven single BDA each. US (n=3), CT (n=5), and MRI (n=3) were performed before histologic confirmation. Additionally, a systematic English literature review for BDA and reported imaging findings since 2000 was also conducted using the following search criteria "bile duct adenoma, peribiliary hamartoma, biliary adenoma, CT, ultrasound, MRI" (date range: 01/01/2000 through 08/31/2016). The imaging findings of those cases reported were summarized and compared with our series.
resultsAll seven individual nodules were well circumscribed. Five lesions were located in the right hepatic lobe and two in the left hepatic lobe. On US, lesions appeared hypoechoic (n=2) and hyperechoic (n=1). BDA was hypodense on unenhanced CT images (n=1). On MRI, BDA were hypointense on T1 (n=3), hyperintense on T2 (n=3), and hyperintense on diffusion-weighted images (n=2). On contrast-enhanced CT and MRI, BDAs showed arterial phase hyperenhancement that persisted on portal venous/delayed phase images.
conclusionBDA demonstrates characteristic arterial phase hyperenhancement that persisted into the portal venous and delayed phases on CT and MRI, which may be useful in differentiating from other hepatic 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.