ArticleEuropean radiology2024
Key postnatal magnetic resonance characteristics for differentiating cystic biliary atresia from choledochal cyst.
Article in European radiology, 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.
- Diagnostic dilemma of cystic biliary atresia: A series of two cases and brief review of the diagnostic modalities.JPGN reports · 2026Article
- Adjunctive value of 3D MRCP in biliary atresia: a retrospective two-center analysis of cholestatic infants.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Early postnatal characteristics and differential diagnosis of choledochal cyst and cystic biliary atresia.World journal of gastroenterology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo analyze the ability of magnetic resonance (MR) to identify cystic biliary atresia (CBA) and choledochal cyst (CC).
methodsInfants (≤ 1 year old) who were diagnosed with CBA or CC type I/IV from January 2010 to July 2023 were retrospectively reviewed. Imaging characteristics on MR were compared between the CBA and CC groups. Binary logistic regression and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were analyzed for the identification of CBA.
resultsSixty-three patients with CBA (median age, 30 days) and 172 patients with CC (median age, 60 days) were included. Gallbladder (GB) wall thickness (cutoff, 1.2 mm) showed 98.4% sensitivity and 100% specificity (AUC, 0.998). MR-triangular cord thickness (MR-TCT) (cutoff, 4.1 mm) showed 100% sensitivity and 95.9% specificity (AUC, 0.986). The bile duct loop visualization showed 96.8% sensitivity and 100% specificity (AUC, 0.984). Proximal bile duct (PBD) diameter (cutoff, 1.3 mm) showed 92.1% sensitivity and 95.3% specificity (AUC, 0.977). Cyst wall thickness (cutoff, 1 mm) showed 77.8% sensitivity and 95.3% specificity (AUC, 0.942). The combination of GB wall thickness > 1.2 mm and MR-TCT > 4.1 mm, GB wall thickness > 1.2 mm and loop visualization, GB wall thickness > 1.2 mm, and cyst wall thickness > 1 mm showed 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity (AUC, 1.000).
conclusionsImaging characteristics on MR might be used to identify CBA and CC, and the combination of GB wall thickness and MR-TCT, or loop visualization, or cyst wall thickness, has a perfect diagnostic value. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Early and accurate differentiation of CBA and CC is essential, but current methods rely on inherently subjective ultrasound. Biliary features on MRI allow for an objective, accurate diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38753194What 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.