ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
Recurrence following Resection of Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms: A Systematic Review to Guide Surveillance.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigation of the Optimal Duration and Modality for Postoperative Surveillance of Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm (IPMN): A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- DIAGNOSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF INTRADUCTAL PAPILLARY MUCINOUS NEOPLASMS: A NARRATIVE REVIEW BASED ON INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINES.Arquivos de gastroenterologia · 2026Review
- [Pancreatic cystic neoplasms].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- Novel Insights into Postoperative Surveillance in Resected Pancreatic Cystic Neoplasms-A Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients who undergo resection for non-invasive IPMN are at risk for long-term recurrence. Further evidence is needed to identify evidence-based surveillance strategies based on the risk of recurrence. We performed a systematic review of the current literature regarding recurrence patterns following resection of non-invasive IPMN to summarize evidence-based recommendations for surveillance. Among the 61 studies reviewed, a total of 8779 patients underwent resection for non-invasive IPMN. The pooled overall median follow-up time was 49.5 months (IQR: 38.5-57.7) and ranged between 14.1 months and 114 months. The overall median recurrence rate for patients with resected non-invasive IPMN was 8.8% (IQR: 5.0, 15.6) and ranged from 0% to 27.6%. Among the 33 studies reporting the time to recurrence, the overall median time to recurrence was 24 months (IQR: 17, 46). Existing literature on recurrence rates and post-resection surveillance strategies for patients with resected non-invasive IPMN varies greatly. Patients with resected non-invasive IPMN appear to be at risk for long-term recurrence and should undergo routine surveillance.
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.