Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32516560›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of radiology2020

Non-neoplastic conditions mimicking peritoneal carcinomatosis at CT imaging.

Mohab M Elmohr, Khaled M Elsayes, Perry J Pickhardt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
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

3 authors.

Mohab M ElmohrDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States.
Khaled M ElsayesDepartment of Abdominal Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Perry J PickhardtDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, Madison, WI, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The general appearance of peritoneal carcinomatosis at abdominal CT and other cross-sectional imaging modalities consists of varying amounts of peritoneal-based soft tissue implants (mass-forming or infiltrative), peritoneal fluid, and occasionally calcification. However, a wide variety of common and uncommon neoplastic and non-neoplastic conditions can closely mimic peritoneal carcinomatosis at imaging. Neoplastic mimics of peritoneal carcinomatosis include primary peritoneal and sub peritoneal tumors, as well as peritoneal lymphomatosis and sarcomatosis.Broad categories of non-neoplastic mimics of peritoneal carcinomatosis include tumor-like conditions, systemic processes, atypical infections, and fat-based conditions. For many entities, suggestive or specific patient information and/or CT imaging findings exist that may allow the radiologist to narrow the differential diagnosis. In this article, we review the salient clinical and cross-sectional imaging features of non-neoplastic mimics of peritoneal carcinomatosis and malignancy, with emphasis on the CT findings and the additional clues that may suggest the correct benign diagnosis.

Indexed as

Tomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinomaDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPeritoneal Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID32516560
PMCPMC7465865

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.