ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal cancer2021
Imaging Accuracy in Diagnosis of Different Focal Liver Lesions: A Retrospective Study in North of Iran.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal cancer, 2021. 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, 2 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFocal liver lesions (FLLs) are incidentally detected masses found in daily abdominal imaging which are necessary to be characterized, because of the potential of being malignant. There are several imaging methods, such as ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT scan), and contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Here, we evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy (i.e., sensitivity and specificity) of these imaging methods for the diagnosis of FLLs. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn this retrospective study, patients with focal liver lesions included and based on the gastroenterologist decision, in 79 patients different imaging methods were used to determine the nature of FLLs: the US, CT scan, and MRI. At the next step, fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNA) was performed in all cases, and the results about the true nature of FLLs compared with different imaging results. The chi-square test and McNemar test were used.
resultsUltrasound diagnosis of benign and malignant was obtained with 82% diagnosis accuracy, 100% sensitivity, 71.4% specificity, 100% negative predictive value, and 69.2% positive predictive value (PPV) compared with the biopsy. Also, the results of benign and malignant masses in CT scan were obtained with diagnostic accuracy of 95%, 100% sensitivity, 80% specificity, 93.9% positive predictive value, and 100% negative predictive value. MRI performed only in 2 cases with similar results to pathology.
conclusionIt seems that CT scan is more appropriate and useful in the diagnosis of hepatic masses due to its higher diagnostic accuracy than the ultrasound.
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.