SynthesisThe Journal of international medical research2020
Radiological assessment of secondary biliary tree lesions: an update.
Synthesis in The Journal of international medical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiomics and machine learning analysis by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in colorectal liver metastases prognostic assessment.La Radiologia medica · 2023Article
- Article
- Colorectal liver metastases patients prognostic assessment: prospects and limits of radiomics and radiogenomics.Infectious agents and cancer · 2023Review
- Risk Assessment and Cholangiocarcinoma: Diagnostic Management and Artificial Intelligence.Biology · 2023Review
- Risk Assessment and Pancreatic Cancer: Diagnostic Management and Artificial Intelligence.Cancers · 2023Review
- Diffusion weighted imaging and diffusion kurtosis imaging in abdominal oncological setting: why and when.Infectious agents and cancer · 2022Review
- Conventional, functional and radiomics assessment for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.Infectious agents and cancer · 2022Article
- Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and its differential diagnosis at MRI: how radiologist should assess MR features.La Radiologia medica · 2021Article
- Diagnostic evaluation and ablation treatments assessment in hepatocellular carcinoma.Infectious agents and cancer · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo conduct a systematic literature review of imaging techniques and findings in patients with peribiliary liver metastasis.
methodsSeveral electronic datasets were searched from January 1990 to June 2017 to identify studies assessing the use of different imaging techniques for the detection and staging of peribiliary metastases.
resultsThe search identified 44 studies, of which six met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) is the technique of choice in the preoperative setting and during the follow-up of patients with liver tumors. However, the diagnostic performance of MDCT for the assessment of biliary tree neoplasms was low compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Ultrasound (US), without and with contrast enhancement (CEUS), is commonly employed as a first-line tool for evaluating focal liver lesions; however, the sensitivity and specificity of US and CEUS for both the detection and characterization are related to operator expertise and patient suitability. MRI has thus become the gold standard technique because of its ability to provide morphologic and functional data. MRI showed the best diagnostic performance for the detection of peribiliary metastases.
conclusionsMRI should be considered the gold standard technique for the radiological assessment of secondary biliary tree lesions.
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.