ArticleBMC medical imaging2019
Combination of CEUS and MRI for the diagnosis of periampullary space-occupying lesions: a retrospective analysis.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of imaging technology for the diagnosis of malignancy in the pancreaticobiliary duodenal junction (Review).Oncology letters · 2024Review
- Identifying Periampullary Regions in MRI Images Using Deep Learning.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), and the combination of CEUS and MRI (CCWM) for the diagnosis of periampullary space-occupying lesions (PSOL) was investigated.
methodsA total of 102 patients diagnosed with PSOLs by surgery or biopsy were recruited retrospectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of MRI, CEUS, and CCWM were analyzed.
resultsMRI, CEUS, and CCWM allowed for the accurate detection of 91.17, 92.15, and 99.01% of PSOLs, respectively. The specificity, PPV, and accuracy of CCWM were significantly different from MRI and CEUS (p < 0.05). However, there the sensitivity and NPV were not significantly different among the three diagnostic technologies. In addition, the specificity, PPV, and accuracy were not significantly different between MRI and CEUS (all p > 0.05).
conclusionsCCWM is valuable for differentiating benign and malignant PSOL, which provides important guiding significances for the clinic.
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.