ArticleBMC gastroenterology2019
A prospective study on endoscopic ultrasound for the differential diagnosis of serous cystic neoplasms and mucinous cystic neoplasms.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endoscopic management of pancreatic cystic neoplasms.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Review
- Can cereal-based oral contrast agents-assisted ultrasound become an alternative to non-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in radiological follow-up for pancreatic cystic lesions?Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Preoperative differentiation of serous cystic neoplasms from mucin-producing pancreatic cystic neoplasms using a CT-based radiomics nomogram.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2021Article
- Discrimination of serous cystadenoma from mucinous cystic neoplasm and branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm in the pancreas with CT.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo provide criteria for the differential diagnosis of serous cystic neoplasms (SCNs) and mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCNs) by analyzing the imaging features of these two neoplasms by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS).
methodsFrom April 2015 to December 2017, a total of 69 patients were enrolled in this study. All patients were confirmed to have MCNs (31 patients) or SCNs (38 patients) by surgical pathology. All patients underwent EUS examination. The observation and recorded items were size, location, shape, cystic wall thickness, number of septa, and solid components.
resultsHead/neck location, lobulated shape, thin wall and > 2 septa were the specific imaging features for the diagnosis of SCNs. When any two imaging features were combined, we achieved the highest area under the curve (Az) (0.824), as well as the appropriate sensitivity (84.2%), specificity (80.6%), positive predictive value (PPV) (84.2%), and negative predictive value (NPV) (80.6%). Body/tail location, round shape, thick wall and 0-2 septa were the specific imaging features for the diagnosis of MCNs. When any three imaging features were combined, we obtained the highest Az value (0.808), as well as the appropriate sensitivity (77.4%), specificity (84.2%), PPV (80.0%) and NPV (82.1%).
conclusionsPancreatic cystadenomas that meet any two of the four imaging features of head/neck location, lobulated shape, thin wall and > 2 septa could be diagnosed as SCNs, and those that meet any three of the four imaging features of body/tail location, round shape, thick wall and 0-2 septa could be considered as MCNs.
trial registrationThe study was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. The registration identification number is ChiCTR-OOC-15006118 . The date of registration is 2015-03-20.
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.