ArticleBioMed research international2019
The Value of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Classification in Diagnosis of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions.
Article in BioMed research international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large language models for analyzing contrast-enhanced ultrasound reports of pancreatic cystic lesions.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- The clinical utility and diagnostic performance of transabdominal contrast-enhanced ultrasonography using Sonazoid for pancreatic diseases: a narrative review.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2026Review
- A nomogram for malignancy prediction of pancreatic cystic lesions based on trans-abdominal ultrasound features.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Cavernous hemangioma of an intrapancreatic accessory spleen mimicking a pancreatic tumor: A case report.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Article
- Value of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in the Ultrasound Classification of Cervical Tuberculous Lymphadenitis.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Cystic pancreatic lesions, the endless dilemma.World journal of gastroenterology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the consistency of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) classification results with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to investigate the diagnostic value of CEUS classification in pancreatic cystic lesions.
methods84 cases of pancreatic cystic lesions were enrolled in this study. According to the CEUS classification methods of previous study in our center, all the lesions were classified into four types: type I, unilocular cysts; type II, microcystic lesions; type III, macrocystic lesions; and type IV, cystic lesions with enhanced solid components. The consistency of CEUS and MRI typing results was analysed. Among the 84 cases, 45 cases had pathological results. The CEUS results were compared with the pathological results, and the diagnostic value of CEUS classification in diagnosing pancreatic cystic lesions was explored.
resultsAmong the 84 cases, CEUS diagnosed 8 cases of type I, 24 of type II, 8 of type III, and 45 of type IV. MRI diagnosed 10 cases of type I, 25 of type II, 7 of type III, and 43 of type IV. The classification typing results of CEUS were highly consistent with that of enhanced MRI (kappa value: 0.852). Among the 45 cases with pathological results, the diagnostic accuracy of each type was 91.1%, 95.6%, 93.3%, and 88.9%. The accuracy of CEUS and MRI in diagnosing pancreatic cystic lesions was 75.56% (34/45) and 80% (36/45), respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of CEUS had no significant difference from that of MRI (
conclusionThe classification results by CEUS and MRI are in excellent agreement. The classification of pancreatic cystic lesions by CEUS is significantly helpful for clinical diagnosis.
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.