ArticleClinical rheumatology2024
Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the activity of idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis: a retrospective study.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the disease activity of idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis (IRPF).
methodsThis retrospective study included 148 CEUS examinations from 63 patients with IRPF treated in our hospital from April 2016 to September 2021. They were divided into two groups: IRPF active group (69 examinations) and inactive group (79 examinations). Uni- and multivariable analyses were used to identify independent risk factors for IRPF activity. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were drawn to establish different diagnostic models to evaluate the diagnostic value of IRPF activity. The z test was used to compare the differences of the area under the curves (AUCs). The value of CEUS in evaluating the variation of disease activity over time was also investigated between repeat patient studies.
resultsUnivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed the thickness [odds ratio (OR) = 14.125, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.017-66.123] was the most significant independent risk factor for IRPF activity (P < 0.01). The best diagnostic model was model 3, which was established by CEUS score combined with thickness. The AUC was 0.944 (95%CI = 0.912-0.977), and the sensitivity and specificity were 89.86% and 86.08%, respectively. The diagnostic performance was not significantly improved after combining clinical symptom (back pain) and laboratory indicators [erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP)]. Compared with before treatment, the CEUS score and thickness were significantly decreased after treatment (x
conclusionCEUS has good diagnostic value for IRPF disease activity. Key points • Thickness and contrast-enhanced ultrasound score were significantly higher in the active group than those in inactive group (P < 0.001). • With thickness of 4 mm and contrast-enhanced ultrasound 2 score as optimal cut-off values, the sensitivity and specificity were 89.86%, 81.01% and 52.17%, 100.00%, respectively. • During follow-up, when the disease progressed, the change of CEUS score was earlier than the change of thickness.
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.