ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental hepatology
Agreement of Gallbladder Reporting and Data System for Gallbladder Wall Thickening at Ultrasonography: A Multireader Validation Study.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental hepatology. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intraoperative ultrasound enhancing safety of key steps in complex laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Article
- Update on the Role of Imaging in the Diagnosis, Staging, and Prognostication of Gallbladder Cancer.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2025Review
- Early Diagnosis of Gall Bladder Cancer: An Appeal.South Asian journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Navigating the Diagnostic Dilemma of Evaluating Gallbladder Wall Thickening: Are We There Yet?Journal of clinical and experimental hepatologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This article aims to evaluate the intrareader and interreader agreement of ultrasound (US) gallbladder reporting and data system (GB-RADS) and validate the risk of malignancy in each GB-RADS category. Materials and methods: This retrospective study comprised consecutive patients with nonacute gallbladder wall thickening who underwent US evaluation between January 2019 and December 2022. Three radiologists independently read the static US images and cine-loops for GB-RADS findings and assigned GB-RADS categories. The intraobserver (static images) and interobserver (static images and cine-loops) agreement was calculated using kappa statistics and Krippendorff's alpha. Another radiologist assigned a consensus GB-RADS category. The percentage of malignancy in each GB-RADS category was calculated. Results: Static US images of 414 patients (median age, 56 years; 288 women, benign = 45.6% and malignant = 54.4%) and cine-loops of 50 patients were read. There was weak to moderate intrareader agreement for most GB-RADS findings and moderate intrareader agreement for the GB-RADS category for all readers. On static images, the interreader agreement was acceptable for GB-RADS categories. On cine-loops, the interreader agreement for GB-RADS findings and categories was better than static images. The percentage of malignancy was 1.2%, 37%, 71.1%, and 89.1% in GB-RADS 2, 3, 4, and 5 categories. Conclusion: GB-RADS has moderate intrareader for GB-RADS categories. As originally proposed, the risk of malignancy is negligible in GB-RADS 2 category and highest in GB-RADS 5 category. However, the discriminatory performance of GB-RADS 3 and 4 categories is low. Larger multicenter studies with more readers must assess the reader agreement and validate the GB-RADS systems for wider clinical utilization.
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.