Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35505388›Full record

ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2022

The comparative study of color doppler flow imaging, superb microvascular imaging, contrast-enhanced ultrasound micro flow imaging in blood flow analysis of solid renal mass.

Yiran Mao, Jie Mu, Jing Zhao, Fan Yang, Lihui Zhao

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Ultrasonography of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Diagnosis to Prognosis.Journal of clinical and translational hepatology · 2024
    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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yiran MaoDepartment of Ultrasound, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China.
Jie MuDepartment of Ultrasound, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China. 1748009893@qq.com.
Jing ZhaoDepartment of Ultrasound, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China.
Fan YangDepartment of Ultrasound, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China.
Lihui ZhaoDepartment of Ultrasound, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China. zhaolihui0512@126.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2277-9855
Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposesTo evaluate the value of Color Doppler Flow Imaging (CDFI), Superb Microvascular Imaging (SMI) and Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Microflow Imaging (MFI) in display the microvascular blood flow signals in renal solid lesions.

methods142 patients with 144 renal masses were examined by CDFI, SMI and MFI simultaneously. We compared the difference of blood flow grading and vascular architecture based on CDFI, SMI and MFI.

resultsThe blood flow signals detection rates of CDFI, SMI and MFI were 78.5% (113/144), 88.9% (128/144) and 93.8% (135/144), respectively. Concentrated on blood flow grading, The coincidence rates of CDFI and SMI were 64.58% (93/144) and 81.25% (117/144) referring to MFI, respectively. Blood flow grade 2-3 in CDFI is significantly lower than SMI(x

conclusionSMI and MFI are superior to CDFI in showing blood flow signals in renal solid masses, and it can perform blood flow and vascular architecture more accurately. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: SMI is similar to MFI in its ability to display fine vessels and diagnostic efficiency, and has application value in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of renal solid masses.

Indexed as

MicrovesselsUltrasonography, Doppler, ColorHumansROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonographyMFIRenal tumorSMIUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID35505388
PMCPMC9066849
OpenAlexW4225309633

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.