ArticleJornal de pediatria
A comparison between ultrasonography and single-phase computed tomography for preoperative assessment of solid abdominal tumors in children.
Article in Jornal de pediatria. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Usefulness of ultrasound in diagnosing constipation in children: a narrative review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
- Multiphase enhanced CT-based transformer for differential diagnosis and predicting surgical risk events of solid abdominal tumors in children.Translational oncology · 2024Article
- Application of artificial intelligence in 3D printing physical organ models.Materials today. Bio · 2023Review
- Making good use of ultrasound for abdominal tumors in children.Jornal de pediatriaArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to estimate the performance of single-phase-enhanced computed tomography and ultrasonography examinations in the preoperative evaluation of solid abdominal tumors and their relationship with relevant adjacent structures in children.
methodsThis retrospective study included 50 pediatric patients with malignant solid abdominal tumors treated with surgical resection between 2009-2017. Preoperative computed tomography and ultrasonography were compared to operative findings (gold standard) in the diagnosis of invasion or encasement of adjacent structures. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were evaluated.
resultsRenal (20.4%) and neuroblastic (19.4%) tumors were the most common. Complete surgical resection with negative margins was achieved in 44 (88%) patients. The comparison between single-phase-enhanced computed tomography and ultrasonography findings showed the following results: sensitivity = 90.3% vs 86.6%, specificity = 86.8% vs 94.6%, negative predictive value = 95.3% vs 94.4%, positive predictive value = 75.3% vs 86.9%, and accuracy = 87.9% vs 92.2%. The correlation (kappa index) between computed tomography and ultrasonography examinations was 0.72 (p < 0.001). In 14% (7/50) of the patients, the invasion of adjacent structures was diagnosed by ultrasonography but not by computed tomography (1 patient had 2 invaded structures).
conclusionUltrasonography can be considered a complementary method to single-phase-enhanced computed tomography in the preoperative evaluation of children with an abdominal tumor. The present study showed that ultrasonography and single-phase-enhanced computed tomography each possess a high accuracy in the preoperative planning of resection of solid abdominal tumors in children. Thus, it seems that the combination of both imaging methods would be enough for the evaluation of most abdominal tumors in the pediatric population.
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.