ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Contrast-enhanced US versus US-guided biopsy for abdominal and pelvic neoplasm in paediatric patients: a propensity score matching study.
Article in European radiology, 2025. 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.
- Comprehensive review of artifacts in cardiac MRI and their mitigation.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the diagnostic performance of CEUS-guided biopsy (CEUS-GB) and ultrasound-guided biopsy (US-GB) in evaluating abdominal and pelvic (abdominopelvic) neoplasms in paediatric patients.
methodsPatients aged < 18 years with abdominopelvic tumours who underwent either CEUS-GB or US-GB between April 2005 and May 2022 were retrospectively evaluated. Tumours diagnosed as malignancies by pathology were considered true-positive findings. Benign lesions were identified by pathology or clinical follow-up of at least 6 months. The diagnostic performance of the two groups was compared using propensity score matching (PSM). Complications were also analysed.
resultsThe present study included 764 paediatric patients (437 boys; median age, 24 months; interquartile range, 10-60 months); 151 were in the CEUS-GB group, and 613 were in the US-GB group. The sample adequacy rate was 100% (151 of 151) for the CEUS-GB group, which was greater than the 97.4% (597 of 613) for the US-GB group (p < 0.001). The overall diagnostic accuracy of the CEUS-GB group and US-GB group was 98.7% (149 of 151) versus 97.3% (581 of 597) in the total cohort (p = 0.551) and 98.7% (149 of 151) versus 92.7% (140 of 151) in the PSM cohort (p = 0.020). Two patients (0.3%) in the US-GB group experienced complications (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), grade 1-2) correlated with the biopsy. No adverse reactions occurred in the CEUS-GB group.
conclusionCEUS-GB of abdominopelvic tumours in paediatric patients is an effective and safe procedure with greater diagnostic accuracy than US-GB, especially for tumours with necrotic areas. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Contrast-enhanced US-guided biopsy of solid abdominal and pelvic tumours in paediatric patients is an effective and safe procedure with greater diagnostic accuracy than US-guided biopsy, especially for tumours with necrotic areas. KEY POINTS: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) may be superior to conventional ultrasound at guiding biopsy of abdominopelvic masses in paediatric patients. CEUS-guided core needle biopsy of abdominopelvic masses in children was safe and resulted in a diagnostic yield of 98.7%. CEUS guidance should be considered in this population when colour Doppler US is unable to determine a biopsy site.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39143246What 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.