ArticleFrontiers in medical technology2023
Comparison of MRCP and ERCP in the evaluation of common bile duct and pancreatic duct pathologies.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characteristics of ill-demarcated small pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma on MRI: a multi-institutional retrospective cohort study.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Cross-Modal Assessment of Post-Cholecystectomy Symptoms: Integrating MRCP Metrics with Upper Endoscopy.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Article
- Delayed intrabiliary migration of embolization material after hepatic arterial embolization: a case report.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Adolescent Epstein-Barr virus-associated cholestatic jaundice with porta hepatis/pancreatic head lymphadenopathy and transient CA 19-9 elevation: a case report.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- All About Multiparametric MRI Evaluation in Biliary Tree Complications After Liver Transplant.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- "Evaluation of hepatobiliary disorders using magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in a low-resource setting in Kano, Nigeria: a retrospective study".BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Article
- Quantitative MRCP metrics as imaging biomarkers to differentiate benign from malignant bile duct obstructions.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.