SynthesisAbdominal radiology (New York)2022
The role of imaging in diagnosis and management of malignant peritoneal mesothelioma: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stochastic Nature of Fascia: From Layered Pedagogical Artifact to Morphogenetic Reality in Clinical Anatomy.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- An ABCC1-based risk model is effective in the diagnosis of synchronous peritoneal metastasis in advanced colorectal cancer.British journal of cancer · 2025Article
- The Many Faces of the Angry Peritoneum.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeImaging of the peritoneum and related pathology is a challenge. Among peritoneal diseases, malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPeM) is an uncommon tumor with poor prognosis. To date, there are no specific guidelines or imaging protocols dedicated for the peritoneum and MPeM. The objective of this study was to analyze the literature describing imaging modalities used for MPeM to determine their relative clinical efficacy and review commonly reported imaging features of MPeM to promote standardized reporting.
methodsWe performed a systematic review of original research articles discussing imaging modalities in MPeM from 1999 to 2020. Effectiveness measures and common findings were compared across imaging modalities.
resultsAmong 582 studies analyzed, the most-used imaging modality was CT (54.3%). In the differentiation of MPeM from peritoneal carcinomatosis, one study found CT had a diagnostic sensitivity of 53%, specificity of 100%, and accuracy of 68%. Two studies found fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) had sensitivity of 86-92%, specificity of 83-89%, and accuracy of 87-89%. Another study found magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was the best predictor of the peritoneal carcinomatosis index. Characteristics shown to best differentiate MPeM from other diseases included ascites, peritoneal thickening, mesenteric thickening, pleural plaques, maximum tumor dimension, and number of masses.
conclusionMost published MPeM imaging studies utilized CT. PET/CT or MRI appear promising, and future studies should compare effectiveness of these modalities. MPeM imaging reports should highlight ascites, number of and maximum tumor dimension, peritoneal/mesenteric thickening, and associated pleural plaques, allowing for better aggregation of MPeM imaging data across studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35257201What 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.