ReviewDer Internist2019
[Cystic lesions of the pancreas : Differential diagnostics and treatment].
Review in Der Internist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cystic space-occupying lesions of the pancreas represent incidental findings in most cases. As there is a potential risk of malignant transformation further evaluation of the lesions as well as a follow-up of these patients is usually recommended. Before this work-up is initiated the clinical situation of the patient as a whole and comorbidities, age and personal preferences have to be taken into account. So far there are no biomarkers that reliably predict the risk of malignant transformation. Imaging by magnetic resonance tomography (MRI) in combination with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is more accurate than computed tomography to identify worrisome features. During follow-up, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) can be used as complementary method to MRI/MRCP. Using contrast enhancement or endoscopic fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) may influence the therapeutic strategy in some patients. Whereas for some cystic pancreatic lesions consensus has been reached, varying recommendations exist for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN). There is consensus that in main-duct as well as in mixed-type IPMN surgery is recommended. The management of branch-duct type IPMN, however, remains controversial. A multidisciplinary expert panel including gastroenterologists, visceral surgeons, radiologists and pathologists is essential to discuss all cases of patients with cystic pancreatic lesions and to guarantee an optimal, patient-centered treatment recommendation.
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.