ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Discrepancies in Splenic Size Measurement: A Comparative Analysis of Ultrasound and Computed Tomography.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Liver Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS): Roadmap for training, credentialing, and implementation.Hepatology communications · 2026Review
- Beyond single cut-off values in ultrasound: limitations and implications for context-aware radiology reporting.Insights into imaging · 2026Review
- Development and validation of an interpretable machine learning model for standard spleen volume prediction.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The accurate measurement of splenic size is essential for the diagnosis and management of various gastrointestinal and hematological conditions. While ultrasound (US) and computed tomography (CT) are widely used imaging modalities for assessing splenic size, discrepancies between their measurements have been observed in clinical practice. This study aimed to analyze the measurement differences between US and CT and identify factors influencing these differences. A retrospective analysis of 598 asymptomatic patients who underwent both abdominal US and CT was conducted. Measurements of splenic size obtained from US, axial CT, and coronal CT scans were compared, and various factors such as patient demographics, operator experience, and imaging parameters were evaluated to elucidate their impact on the measurement discrepancies. The results revealed that US consistently underestimated splenic size compared to CT. The magnitude of the discrepancy was influenced by factors such as patient age, body mass index (BMI), depth of the spleen from skin on US and that on CT, visibility of the splenic hilum on US, sonic window quality, and operator experience. This study underscores the importance of considering these factors when interpreting splenic measurements obtained from different imaging modalities in clinical practice.
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.