ArticlePolish journal of radiology2022
The value of different diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance techniques in the diagnosis of middle ear cholesteatoma. Is there still an indication for echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging?
Article in Polish journal of radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Limitations, Patient Characteristics, and Confounding Factors Impacting Neurotologic Lesion Imaging: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Detection of cholesteatoma recurrence by magnetic resonance imaging (DWI non-EPI sequence) - how can we minimise false results?Polish journal of radiology · 2025Article
- The Role of Stepwise Imaging in the Diagnosis and Management of Cholesteatoma in a Resource-Limited Setting: A Case Report.International medical case reports journal · 2025Article
- Beyond the otoscope: an imaging review of congenital cholesteatoma.Insights into imaging · 2024Review
- PROPELLER diffusion weighted imaging for diagnosis of cholesteatoma in comparison with surgical and histopathological results: emphasis on false positivity and false negativity.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the study was to analyse the value of 2 different diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) techniques (echo-planar imaging [EPI] and on-echo-planar imaging [non-EPI]) in the diagnosis of cholesteatoma. MATERIAL AND
methodsOur material consisted of 32 subjects suspected of cholesteatoma, who underwent magnetic resonance imaging of the temporal bone using both EPI and non-EPI DWI. Two independent readers retrospectively analysed magnetic resonance images. Intra- and interobserver agreements as well sensitivity, specificity, and negative (NPV) and positive (PPV) predictive values of both DWI sequences were assessed.
resultsUsing non-EPI DWI all cholesteatomas were correctly diagnosed by both readers with no false negative nor inconclusive cases and with only one false positive result. Non-EPI DWI revealed high interobserver agreement (k = 1) and high correlation with histopathological results (
conclusionsNon-EPI DWI with high sensitivity, specificity, and interobserver agreement is a very reliable technique in detecting middle ear cholesteatoma regardless of the pre- or postoperative state of the ear, and it should entirely replace EPI DWI in clinical practice.
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.