ReviewUpdates in surgery2020
MRI of mucinous pancreatic cystic lesions: a new updated morphological approach for the differential diagnosis.
Review in Updates in surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-contrast MRI features of mucin plugs and mural nodules in pancreatic cystic lesions.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Mucinous Cystic Neoplasms in Male Patients: Histopathological and Molecular Diagnoses.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Imaging of pancreatic serous cystadenoma and common imitators.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Review
- The Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions (PCLs).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- MRI is useful to suggest and exclude malignancy in mucinous cystic neoplasms of the pancreas.European radiology · 2022Article
- Cystic Neoplasms of the Pancreas: Differential Diagnosis and Radiology Correlation.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Risk Assessment and Radiomics Analysis in Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Pancreatic Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms (IPMN).Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterReview
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) have been increasingly identified over the past 2 decades due to the widespread use of high-resolution non-invasive abdominal imaging. They cover a vast spectrum, from benign to malignant and invasive lesions, thus they constitute a significant clinical entity. Among PCLs, mucin-producing lesions are those at risk of progression to malignancy. They include mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCN) and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN). The diagnosis and management of these cystic lesions are a dilemma since there is a significant overlap in the morphology of benign and premalignant lesions. At the moment, there is no single test that will allow a correct diagnosis in all cases. Magnetic resonance (MR) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) morphology, with cyst fluid analysis and cytohistology done with EUS-guided procedure are the best techniques that can narrow the differential diagnosis and identify potentially malignant lesions requiring resection from those requiring follow-up only. The purpose of this paper is to present an updated review of MR imaging findings of mucinous PCLs and to provide a new morphological approach that can serve as a practical guide for the diagnosis of these lesions, allowing a more confident characterization and avoiding relevant misdiagnosis. Furthermore, we provide some information about EUS and cystic fluid analysis and cytohistology, since they are diagnostic modalities that radiologists and surgeons should be familiar with.
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.