ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental hepatology
Digital Image Analysis has an Additive Beneficial Role to Conventional Cytology in Diagnosing the Nature of Biliary Ducts Stricture.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental hepatology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04112030 (Role of Digital Image Analysis in Diagnosing Nature of Indeterminate Biliary Duct Stricture), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Role of Digital Image Analysis in Diagnosing Nature of Indeterminate Biliary Duct Stricture
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementing Massive Parallel Sequencing into Biliary Samples Obtained through Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography for Diagnosing Malignant Bile Duct Strictures.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Clinical characteristics, risk factors and diagnostic outcomes of patients presented with indeterminate biliary stricture: A multicenter study.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimConventional cytological evaluation (CCE) fails to identify nature indeterminate biliary duct stricture (IBDS) in many cases. Digital image analysis (DIA) has the ability to identify and analyze the DNA content of cells. This study assesses the role of DIA in recognizing the nature of IBDS compared to CCE.
methodsA prospective observational study was conducted at the Al-Rajhi University Hospital. Fifty patients with IBDS, based on abdominal imaging, were subjected to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and brush sampling. These samples were evaluated with CCE and DIA. Follow-up for at least 9 months and cost-analysis had also been done.
resultsBased on the final diagnosis, 32 (64.0%) patients had malignant stricture, and 39 (78.0%) had distal stricture. DIA had 84.40% (95% CI; 67.20-94.70) sensitivity and 94.40% (95% CI; 72.70-99.90) specificity in identifying nature of IBDS, whereas CCE had 19.0% (95% CI; 7.20-36.40) sensitivity and 89.0% (95% CI; 65.30-98.60) specificity. Combination of both modalities had 84.40% (95% CI; 67.20-94.70) sensitivity and 83.30% (95% CI; 58.60-96.40) specificity in identification nature of IBDS. Based on CCE alone, only 6/32 (18.80%) of malignant stricture were diagnosed, and 26/32 (81.20%) were missed. However, DIA alone was able to diagnose 27/32 (84.40%) of malignant stricture, and only 5 cases were missed. Both procedures had detection rate of malignant stricture as DIA alone. Benign stricture was correctly diagnosed in 16/18 (88.80%), 17/18 (94.40%), and 15/18 (83.30%) using CCE alone, DIA alone, and both procedures together, respectively. Cost per detection additional one malignant stricture using DIA required 99.4$.
conclusionDIA is substantially better than CCE in diagnosing the nature of IBDS but at an increase cost and thus suggests its application in a wider role in clinical practice. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT04112030.
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.