ArticleHeliyon2024
The value of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging mimickers of cholangiocarcinoma in the extra-hepatic biliary tree: a pictorial review with diagnostic clues.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Imaging of Benign Biliary Tract Disease.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rationale and objectives: To establish a diagnostic model based on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical characteristics for diagnosing extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (eCCA). Materials and methods: From April 2014 to September 2021, consecutive patients with extrahepatic bile duct lesions who underwent contrast-enhanced MRI within 1 month before pathological examination were retrospectively enrolled. Two radiologists blinded to clinicopathological information independently evaluated MR images. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify significant clinicoradiological features associated with eCCA, which were subsequently incorporated into a diagnostic model. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration curve, and decision curve. Results: A total of 182 patients (mean age, 60.8 ± 10.0 years, 117 men) were included, 144 (79 %) of whom had pathologically confirmed eCCA. Diffusion restriction (odds ratio [OR], 8.32; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 2.88, 25.82; Conclusion: The proposed model integrating two MRI features (i.e., indistinct outer margin and diffusion restriction) and three clinical characteristics (i.e., cholelithiasis, lnCA125 and lnDBIL) enabled accurate diagnosis of eCCA. This tool holds the potential to facilitate an early diagnosis and thereby allow timely treatment interventions and improved clinical outcomes for patients with eCCA.
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.