Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32166724›Full record

ArticleJournal of ultrasound2021

The role of ultrasonography in differential diagnosis of orbital lesions.

Vittoria Lanni, Adriana Iuliano, Federica Fossataro, Camilla Russo, Giovanni Uccello, Fausto Tranfa, Diego Strianese, Gianfranco Vallone

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ultrasound, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Use of a handheld ultrasound device for detecting orbital inflammation.American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Paediatric orbital ultrasound: Tips and tricks.Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Vittoria LanniOrbit Unit, Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, University of Naples "Federico II", Via S. Pansini 5, 80133, Naples, Italy. vittorialanni@hotmail.com.
Adriana IulianoOrbit Unit, Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, University of Naples "Federico II", Via S. Pansini 5, 80133, Naples, Italy.
Federica FossataroOrbit Unit, Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, University of Naples "Federico II", Via S. Pansini 5, 80133, Naples, Italy.
Camilla RussoDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
Giovanni UccelloOrbit Unit, Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, University of Naples "Federico II", Via S. Pansini 5, 80133, Naples, Italy.
Fausto TranfaOrbit Unit, Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, University of Naples "Federico II", Via S. Pansini 5, 80133, Naples, Italy.
Diego StrianeseOrbit Unit, Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, University of Naples "Federico II", Via S. Pansini 5, 80133, Naples, Italy.
Gianfranco ValloneDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
University of Naples Federico II · ITKing Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe aim of this study is to assess the value of ultrasound in the differential diagnosis of orbital lesions.

methodsOne hundred and thirty-eight patients with clinical features of an orbital mass were examined by orbital ultrasound prior to undergoing surgery, from January 2000 to January 2017. All patients underwent excisional or incisional orbital biopsy. The results of orbital ultrasonography were compared with the final histological diagnosis.

resultsOrbital lesions were localized by ultrasonography in 133/138 cases (96.4%); the false-negative rate of orbital echography was 3.6% (5/138). The nature of the orbital lesions was correctly determined by ultrasonography in 54.3% of the cases (75/138) preoperatively (true positives). In 58/138 (42%) patients, there was no correspondence between the ultrasound diagnosis and the histological diagnosis (false positives). The sensitivity of orbital ultrasonography for the detection of an orbital mass was 93.75% (CI 87.87-99.63%), while the specificity yielded no meaningful result (CI 0.00-60.24%). Moreover, the specificity of orbital ultrasonography to identify a malignant tumor falls within a CI of 0-62.72%.

conclusionsOrbital ultrasonography is a rapid and noninvasive test that is highly sensitive in displaying an orbital mass; however, the specificity in the differential diagnosis of orbital lesions is not meaningful, particularly if malignancy is suspected. The assessment of orbital diseases requires multiple diagnostic approaches to balance the strengths and weaknesses of each method.

Indexed as

Orbital DiseasesBiopsyDiagnosis, DifferentialHumansUltrasonographyIdiopathic orbital inflammationLymphomaOrbital lesionsUltrasonographyVascular malformations

Identifiers

PMID32166724
PMCPMC7925760
OpenAlexW3011702138

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.