ReviewInsights into imaging2019
The imaging appearances of various pericardial disorders.
Review in Insights into imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Large Intrapericardial Cystic Lymphangioma: Encircling the Right Coronary Artery.CASE (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2026Article
- Echocardiographic monitoring in cancer therapy: clinical guidance for cardiologists and oncologists.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
- Article
- Radiological Insights Into the Pericardium: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2025Review
- Primary pericardial mesothelioma complicated by pericardial calcification.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023Article
- The Diagnostic Deceiver: Radiological Pictorial Review of Tuberculosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Article
- Erdheim-Chester Disease With Extensive Pericardial Involvement: A Case Report and Systematic Review.Cardiology research · 2020Article
- Epipericardial Fat Necrosis: A Case Report and a Review of the Literature.Clinical medicine insights. Case reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The pericardium could be involved in a variety of clinical disorders. The imaging findings are not specific for an individual pathology in most of the cases; however, patient's clinical history may guide radiologist to a definitive diagnosis. Congenital absence of the pericardium could be recognized with the imaging appearance of interposed lung tissue between the main pulmonary artery and aorta. Pericardial effusion is a non-specific condition that may occur due to inflammatory, infectious, and neoplastic disorders. Cardiac tamponade may occur in case of massive or rapid accumulation of fluid in the pericardial sac. Pericardial calcification is a common and easily identified entity on a computed tomography (CT) scan. Presence of calcification and/or fibrosis may result in pericardial constriction. Nevertheless, the pulsation of an adjacent coronary artery may prevent calcification formation in a focal area and consequently may result in pericardial diverticulum containing epicardial fat and coronary artery. The imaging findings encountered in patients with pericardial hydatid disease and Erdheim-Chester disease may mimic those of pericardial neoplasia. Pericardial adhesions and pedicled fat flaps may cause confusion on a CT scan in the post-surgical period following cardiac surgery. Pericardial fat necrosis can be diagnosed by CT in patients with chest pain. The radiologists should be familiar with the medical devices placed in pericardial space for certain individual indications. A pericardial patch and temporary epicardial pacemaker wires could be identified on a CT scan.
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.