SynthesisThe British journal of surgery2024
Diagnostic accuracy of cross-sectional and endoscopic imaging in ampullary tumours: systematic review.
Synthesis in The British journal of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Therapeutic strategies and outcomes in the management of ampullary tumours: meta-analysis.BJS open · 2026Pooled it
- A continuous visualization workflow for endoscopic papillectomy using balloon-assisted endoscopic ultrasound and direct cholangioscopy.Endoscopy · 2026Article
- AI-powered hierarchical classification of ampullary neoplasms: a deep learning approach using white-light and narrow-band imaging.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Differentiating pancreatic from periampullary non-pancreatic cancer: a nomogram-based prediction model utilizing CT imaging.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025Article
- From diverticulum to diagnosis: The distinctive role of Endoscopic Ultrasonography in Lemmel syndrome.PloS one · 2025Article
- Evaluation of endoscopic resectability for ampullary tumors by EUS and side-viewing duodenoscopy.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
- Synchronous Ampullary Adenocarcinoma and Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Rare Case Report and Literature Review.Case reports in oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifferentiation between adenomas and carcinomas of the ampulla of Vater is crucial for therapy and prognosis. This was a systematic review of the literature on the accuracy of diagnostic modalities used to differentiate between benign and malignant ampullary tumours.
methodsA literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. Studies were included if they reported diagnostic test accuracy information among benign and malignant ampullary tumours, and used pathological diagnosis as the reference standard. Risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment on Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) 2 and QUADAS-C.
resultsTen studies comprising 397 patients were included. Frequently studied modalities were (CT; 2 studies), endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS; 3 studies), intraductal ultrasonography (IDUS; 2 studies), and endoscopic forceps biopsy (3 studies). For CT, the reported sensitivity for detecting ampullary carcinoma was 44 and 95%, and the specificity 58 and 60%. For EUS, the sensitivity ranged from 63 to 89% and the specificity between 50 and 100%. A sensitivity of 88 and 100% was reported for IDUS, with a specificity of 75 and 93%. For forceps biopsy, the sensitivity ranged from 20 to 91%, and the specificity from 75 to 86%. The overall risk of bias was scored as moderate to poor. Data were insufficient for meta-analysis.
conclusionTo differentiate benign from malignant ampullary tumours, EUS and IDUS seem to be the best diagnostic modalities. Sufficient high-quality evidence, however, is lacking.
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.