Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37521722›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medical technology2023

Comparison of MRCP and ERCP in the evaluation of common bile duct and pancreatic duct pathologies.

Anand Kumar, Nihar Ranjan Mohanty, Madhusmita Mohanty, Sashibhusan Dash

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medical technology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anand KumarDepartment of Radiodiagnosis, Apollo Hospitals, Bhubaneswar, India.
Nihar Ranjan MohantyDepartment of Radiodiagnosis, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS), Bhubaneswar, India.
Madhusmita MohantyDepartment of Pathology, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS), Bhubaneswar, India.
Sashibhusan DashDepartment of Oncopathology, Acharya Harihar Postgraduate Institute of Cancer (AHPGIC), Cuttack, India.
All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhubaneswar · INApollo Hospitals · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is a non-invasive imaging modality that has high diagnostic accuracy for a wide range of bile duct and pancreatic duct pathologies. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is still the gold standard for the exploration of the biliopancreatic region. Aim: The aim of the study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of MRCP with that of ERCP in the diagnosis of bile duct and pancreatic duct pathologies. Material and methods: A total of 60 patients with common bile duct (CBD) and pancreatic duct pathologies detected on MRCP were subsequently evaluated by ERCP in this observational study. A comparison of MRCP findings with ERCP was made. Results: MRCP had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of 88.1%, 94.4%, 97.3%, 72.7%, and 90%, respectively, in diagnosing choledocholithiasis in comparison to ERCP. For CBD dilation, the sensitivity was 90.91%, specificity was 93.75% and the PPV, NPV, and accuracy were 97.56%, 78.95%, and 91.67%, respectively, for MRCP. In CBD stricture, MRCP showed a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of 83.33%, 97.92%, 90.91%, 95.92%, and 95%, respectively. In pancreatic duct dilatation, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were all 100%. Pancreatic duct stricture showed a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of 80%, 98%, 88.89%, 96.08%, and 95%, respectively. For the diagnosis of periampullary carcinoma, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy rate of MRCP were 80%, 98%, 88.89%, 96.08%, and 95%, respectively. Conclusion: No significant difference was found between MRCP and ERCP in diagnosing those six pathologies.

Indexed as

biliary pancreatic regionendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographygastrointestinal disordersgold standardmagnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography

Identifiers

PMID37521722
PMCPMC10374843
OpenAlexW4384007413

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.