ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2020
Untargeted Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Versus Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography: A Differential Diagnostic Performance (DDP) Study for Kidney Lesions.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesHistopathology is the 'gold standard' for diagnosing renal cell carcinoma but is limited by sample size. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound can differentiate malignant and benign lesions, but the Chinese guidelines on the management of renal cell carcinoma do not include this method. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic parameters of contrast-enhanced ultrasound against those of contrast-enhanced computed tomography for detecting kidney lesions, with histopathology considered the reference standard.
methodsPatients with suspected kidney lesions from prior grayscale ultrasonography and computed tomography were included in the analysis (n=191). The contrast-enhanced ultrasound, contrast-enhanced computed tomography, and histopathology data were collected and analyzed. A solid, enhanced mass was considered a malignant lesion, and an unenhanced mass or cyst was considered a benign lesion. The Bosniak criteria were used to characterize the lesions.
resultsContrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography both detected that 151 patients had malignant tumors and 40 patients had benign tumors. No significant differences in the tumors and their subtypes were reported between contrast-enhanced ultrasound and histopathology (p=0.804). Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma was detected through contrast-enhanced computed tomography (n=1), but no such finding was reported by contrast-enhanced ultrasound. A total of 35 cases of papillary renal cell carcinoma were reported through contrast-enhanced ultrasound while 32 were reported through histopathology.
conclusionsContrast-enhanced ultrasound might be safe and as accurate as histopathology in diagnosing kidney lesions, especially renal cell carcinoma. Additionally, this study provides additional information over histopathology and has an excellent safety profile. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
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.