Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34718831›Full record

ArticleNeuroradiology2022

MR imaging characteristics of uveal melanoma with histopathological validation.

Teresa A Ferreira, Myriam G Jaarsma-Coes, Marina Marinkovic, Berit Verbist, Robert M Verdijk, Martine J Jager, Gregorius P M Luyten, Jan-Willem M Beenakker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroradiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Quantitative Perfusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Uveal Melanoma.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Teresa A FerreiraDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands. T.A.Ferreira@lumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1115-6292
Myriam G Jaarsma-CoesDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Marina MarinkovicDepartment of Ophthalmology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Berit VerbistDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Robert M VerdijkDepartment of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Martine J JagerDepartment of Ophthalmology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Gregorius P M LuytenDepartment of Ophthalmology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Jan-Willem M BeenakkerDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Funding

kwf kankerbestrijding project number 2019: 12184nederlandse organisatie voor wetenschappelijk onderzoek project number 14654
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) characteristics of uveal melanoma (UM), to compare them with fundoscopy and ultrasound (US), and to validate them with histopathology.

methodsMR images from 42 UM were compared with US and fundoscopy, and on 14 enucleated cases with histopathology.

resultsA significant relationship between the signal intensity on T1 and pigmentation on histopathology was found (p=0.024). T1 hyperintense UM were always moderately or strongly pigmented on histopathology, while T1-hypointense UM were either pigmented or non-pigmented. Mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of the UM was 1.16 ± 0.26 × 10

conclusionsThe anatomical and functional MRI characteristics of UM were comprehensively assessed. Knowing the MRI characteristics of UM is important in order to confirm the diagnosis and to differentiate UM from other intra-ocular lesions and because it has implications for treatment planning. MRI is a good technique to evaluate UM, being only limited in case of flat tumors or on identifying scleral invasion.

Indexed as

MelanomaUveal NeoplasmsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingUltrasonographyUveal MelanomaHistopathologyMagnetic resonance imagingOcular oncologyUltrasoundUveal melanoma

Identifiers

PMID34718831
PMCPMC8724164

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.