ArticleBiomedical reports2024
Imaging‑based diagnosis of intrapancreatic accessory spleen: A case report.
Article in Biomedical reports, 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.
- Case Report: A rare case of hemorrhagic cystic IPAS masquerading as pancreatic neoplasm.Frontiers in oncology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During a routine ultrasound examination of the abdomen, a 60-year-old male patient was diagnosed with mass in the tail of the pancreas. However, computed tomography (CT) suggested that the lesion was an intrapancreatic accessory spleen (IPAS). IPAS is a congenital anomaly, which usually does not present with symptoms. IPAS occurs during embryologic splenic development when a portion of the splenic tissue fails to fuse with the main body of the spleen. IPAS does not require treatment, except when it is combined with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. In the present case, the diagnosis of IPAS was confirmed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). On CT and MRI, the IPAS had a density and intensity comparable with that of the spleen in all plain and contrast-enhanced phases. Due to comorbidities, the patient refused further evaluation or surgery. The lesion was periodically monitored using CT every 1-2 years. Since the tumour was stable during the 7-year follow-up, it was concluded that it was an IPAS. In patients that cannot undergo surgery, a characteristic location (near the spleen) and imaging features (such as a 'zebra-patterned' enhancement in the arterial phase on CT and high signal intensity on diffusion-weighted imaging sequences on MRI, which is comparative to that of the normal spleen) may allow for a diagnose of IPAS with a high level of certainty. Being aware of this condition could aid a correct diagnosis of IPAS and prevent unnecessary surgery.
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.