Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34826229›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of radiology2022

Peritoneal malignancy: anatomy, pathophysiology and an update on modern day imaging.

Jack W Power, Philip J Dempsey, Andrew Yates, Helen Fenlon, Jurgen Mulsow, Conor Shields, Carmel G Cronin

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Evaluating the diagnostic value ofJapanese journal of radiology · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jack W PowerUniversity College Dublin (UCD) School of Medicine, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-7669-2996
Philip J DempseyUniversity College Dublin (UCD) School of Medicine, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Andrew YatesUniversity College Dublin (UCD) School of Medicine, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Helen FenlonUniversity College Dublin (UCD) School of Medicine, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Jurgen MulsowUniversity College Dublin (UCD) School of Medicine, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Conor ShieldsUniversity College Dublin (UCD) School of Medicine, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Carmel G CroninUniversity College Dublin (UCD) School of Medicine, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
University College Dublin · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With increasing subspecialised experience in radical cytoreductive surgery and intra-abdominal chemotherapy for peritoneal malignancy, outcomes have improved significantly in selected patients. The surgery and the treatment regimens are radical and therefore correct patient selection is critical. The radiologist plays a central role in this process by estimating, as precisely as possible, the pre-treatment disease burden. Because of the nature of the disease process, accurate staging is not an easy task. Tumour deposits may be very small and in locations where they are very difficult to detect. It must be acknowledged that no form of modern day imaging has the capability of detecting the smallest peritoneal nodules, which may only be visible to direct inspection or histopathological evaluation. Nonetheless, it behoves the radiologist to be as exact and precise as possible in the reporting of this disease process. This is both to select patients who are likely to benefit from radical treatment, and just as importantly, to identify patients who are unlikely to achieve adequate cytoreductive outcomes. In this review, we outline the patterns of spread of disease and the anatomic basis for this, as well as the essential aspects of reporting abdominal studies in this patient group. We provide an evidence-based update on the relative strengths and limitations of our available multimodality imaging techniques namely CT, MRI and positron emission tomography/CT.

Indexed as

Peritoneal NeoplasmsCytoreduction Surgical ProceduresHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingPositron-Emission TomographyTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID34826229
PMCPMC9153709
OpenAlexW3217001308

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.