ArticleEmergency radiology2019
Accuracy and timeliness of an abbreviated emergency department MRCP protocol for choledocholithiasis.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of Diagnostic Guidelines in the Evaluation of Choledocholithiasis in Patients With Acute Biliary Presentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.World journal of surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Decreasing inappropriate MRCP with contrast exams: impact of an EMR-Embedded clinical care pathway.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- Rapid abdominopelvic MR imaging in the emergency department: establishing a program and addressing the challenges.Pediatric radiology · 2025Review
- Management of ERCP-Related Perforations: A Single-Center Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Preoperative MRCP Can Rule Out Choledocholithiasis in Acute Cholecystitis with a High Negative Predictive Value: Prospective Cohort Study with Intraoperative Cholangiography.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023Article
- Bile duct penetrating duodenal wall sign: a novel computed tomography finding of common bile duct stone impaction into duodenal major papilla.Japanese journal of radiology · 2023Article
- Imaging of benign gallbladder and biliary pathologies in pregnancy.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Review
- Routine preoperative MRCP in screening choledocholithiasis in acute cholecystitis compared to selective approach: a population-based study.Updates in surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the diagnostic accuracy and time savings of an abbreviated magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (A-MRCP) protocol for detecting choledocholithiasis in patients visiting the emergency department (ED) for suspected biliary obstruction. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective study evaluated adult patients (ages 18+ years) visiting an academic Level 1 trauma center between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2017, who were imaged with MRCP for suspected biliary obstruction. Patients were scanned with either a four-sequence A-MRCP protocol or a conventional eight-sequence MRCP (C-MRCP) protocol. Image acquisition and MRI room time were compared. The radiology report was used to determine whether a study was limited by motion or prematurely aborted, as well as for the presence of pertinent biliary findings. Diagnostic accuracy of A-MRCP studies were compared with any available endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) report within 30 days.
resultsOne hundred sixteen patients met inclusion criteria; 85 were scanned with the A-MRCP protocol (45.9% male, mean 57.4 years) and 31 with the C-MRCP protocol (38.7% male, mean 58.3 years). Mean image acquisition time and MRI room time for the A-MRCP protocol were significantly lower compared to those for the C-MRCP protocol (16 and 34 min vs. 42 and 61 min, both p < 0.0001). Choledocholithiasis was seen in 23.5% of A-MRCP cases and 19.4% of C-MRCP cases. Non-biliary findings were common in both cohorts, comprising 56.5% of A-MRCP cases and 41.9% of C-MRCP cases. 44.7% of A-MRCP patients received subsequent (diagnostic or therapeutic) ERCP (mean follow-up time 3 days), in which A-MRCP accurately identified choledocholithiasis in 86.8% of cases, with sensitivity of 85%, specificity of 88.9%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 89.5%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 84.2%. In comparison, 38.7% of C-MRCP patients underwent ERCP (mean follow-up of 2.3 days) with an accuracy of 91.7%, sensitivity of 80%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, and NPV of 87.5%. Only 4.7% of A-MRCP exams demonstrated motion artifact vs. 12.9% of C-MRCP exams. One study was prematurely aborted due to patient discomfort in the A-MRCP cohort while no studies were terminated in the C-MRCP cohort.
conclusionAn abbreviated MRCP protocol to evaluate for choledocholithiasis provides significant time savings and reduced motion artifact over the conventional MRCP protocol while providing similar diagnostic accuracy.
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.