ArticleCureus2020
Diagnostic Reliability of Ultrasound Compared to Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in the Detection of Obstructive Jaundice: A Retrospective Medical Records Review.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound and computed tomography in obstructive jaundice at emergency department: a retrospective study.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Clinical evaluation of endoscopic biliary stenting in treatment of malignant obstructive jaundice.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Ultrasonography Versus Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography in Biliary Obstruction.Cureus · 2023Article
- Noninvasive imaging of hepatic dysfunction: A state-of-the-art review.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Challenges in the diagnosis of obstructive jaundice include locating the level of obstruction, knowing the cause of obstruction, and differentiating between benign and malignant causes. Imaging plays a significant role in detecting the causes of obstruction. Radiologists aim to diagnose biliary obstruction, its level, extent, and probable causes to determine the appropriate treatment for each case. Methods Our study is a retrospective medical record review study. It included 150 patients who had ultrasound (US) diagnosis of biliary obstruction and underwent magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Buraidah. The patients' medical records have been reviewed to measure the sensitivity and specificity of US, MRCP, and ERCP. Results Statistical analysis of the data showed that the sensitivity of US in detecting the most common cause of biliary obstruction, common bile duct (CBD) stone, was 26.6%, while the specificity was 100%. Comparing this sensitivity of US in detecting CBD stones to that of MRCP and ERCP, we obtained the following: US, 26.6%; MRCP, 62.9%; and ERCP, 62.4%. Although US was the least sensitive for detecting CBD stones, its specificity in this detection was 100%, while MRCP was 63.6%, and ERCP was 55.2%. Conclusion US is the best initial step for the diagnosis of biliary obstruction. However, MRCP and ERCP are more sensitive in detecting CBD stones compared to US. Also, compared to US, they have shown higher percentages in all aspects of detection: level, cause, and extent of biliary obstruction.
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.