ArticleDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2022
Relative contribution of susceptibility weighted imaging, compared to conventional MRI, in the detection of common bile-duct calculi.
Article in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PURPOSE We aimed to evaluate the relative contribution of susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI) in the detection of common bile-duct (CBD) stones in comparison to the conventional MRI protocol containing magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), balanced turbo field echo (BTFE), and T2-weighted spin-echo imaging techniques. METHODS MRI data containing MRCP, BTFE, T2-weighted imaging, and abdominal SWI were independently evaluated by 2 sets of experienced radiologists in 44 patients with confirmed CBD stones. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and endoscopic ultrasound where available, was used as the reference gold standard. Evaluation was performed for the visualization of CBD stones in each of the MRI techniques. Relative contribution of SWI was classified into one of four categories for each case: (1) no contribution to CBD stone visualization; (2) same as conventional techniques; (3) improved diagnostic confidence; and (4) critical for diagnosis. Stone size was also assessed. RESULTS Inter-rater agreement coefficient for CBD stone visualization was found to be "good" in MRCP (0.77), "very good" in SWI (0.94) and BTFE (0.84), and moderate in T2-weighted imaging (0.54). CBD stones were visualized with SWI in 86.4% and 82%, with MRCP in 70.5% and 70.5% cases, with BTFE in 73% and 61.4% cases, with T2-weighted imaging in 45.5% and 52.3% cases by reviewers 1 and 2, respectively. SWI did not contribute to CBD stone visualization in 2.3% (1/44); was the same as conventional techniques in 31.8% (14/44) cases; improved diagnostic confidence in 34.1%; and was critical for diagnosis in 20.5% cases. CONCLUSION SWI has the potential to serve as a strong adjunct to conventional MRI protocols used for CBD stone evaluation with very small scan-time penalty.
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.