ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Diagnostic performance of the gallbladder reporting and data system combined with color doppler flow imaging for gallbladder cancer in the Asian population.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Update on the Role of Imaging in the Diagnosis, Staging, and Prognostication of Gallbladder Cancer.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Evaluating the performance of the Gallbladder Reporting and Data System (GB-RADS) combined with Color Doppler Flow Imaging (CDFI) for the diagnosis of gallbladder wall thickening disease in an Asian population. Methods: In this study, the lesions were classified and the actual incidence rate of malignant tumors was calculated for each GB-RADS category, following the guidelines provided by GB-RADS. To evaluate the diagnostic performance of GB-RADS and GB-RADS combined with CDFI, we plotted Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves. The sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy (AC) were also calculated. Inter-observer agreement (IRA) between the two observers was assessed using Kappa values. Results: The incidence of malignancy risk for GB-RADS 2, 3, 4, and 5 was 9%, 12.5%, 72.2%, and 100%. The AUC for GB-RADS was 0.855 (95% CI: 0.800-0.900), with a sensitivity of 82.5%, a specificity of 84.6%, and an accuracy of 83.8%. The AUC of GB-RADS combined with CDFI was 0.965 (95% CI: 0.930-0.985), with a sensitivity of 96.2%, a specificity of 94.6%, and an accuracy of 95.2%. The AUC, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of GB-RADS combined with CDFI for diagnosing gallbladder malignancy were higher than those of GB-RADS alone, and the differences were statistically significant (all P < 0.05). The IRA was excellent between the two observers (Kappa = 0.870). Conclusions: GB-RADS combined with CDFI demonstrated excellent diagnostic accuracy when it comes to distinguishing various diseases that caused gallbladder wall thickening in the Asian population, which has good clinical value and can improve the detection rate of malignant tumors in patients with gallbladder wall thickening.
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.