ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
Clinico-radiological attributes of abnormal pancreaticobiliary junction.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo evaluate the prevalence of abnormal pancreaticobiliary junction (APBJ) on Magnetic Resonance Cholangio-Pancreatography (MRCP) in patients with and without choledochal cyst (CDC), and study their clinico-radiological profile.
methodsWe have retrospectively screened all MRCP studies (n = 13,482) done in our Radiology department over 18 months and documented the presence and type of APBJ (any length of extra-duodenal common channel) and CDC, other co-existing pancreaticobiliary abnormalities including complications.
resultsPrevalence of APBJ was 0.5% (n = 67) with 77% of them showing CDC (52/67) while only 0.85% of patients without APBJ have CDC (p value < 0.0001). The most common type of CDC associated with APBJ was Todani Type I (86%) followed by type IV (14%). 31% of CDC patients had APBJ (52 out of 165) while the majority of patients with CDC (69%) did not have APBJ. Between the CDC (n = 52) and non-CDC (n = 15) subgroups of APBJ, there was statistically significant difference in the age (25 vs. 40 years, p value 0.003), gender, length of common channel (14.4 ± 6 mm vs. 10.6 ± 5 mm, p value 0.03), JSPBM type of APBJ and the risk of biliary malignancy (1.9% vs. 26.7%, p value 0.008, Odds ratio 13.8). Although idiopathic pancreatitis was also more common in the non-CDC subgroup, this difference was not statistically significant. There was no statistical correlation between the length of common channel and occurrence of CDC, biliary calculi, malignancy or pancreatitis.
conclusionAny length of common pancreaticobiliary channel outside the duodenal wall must be considered as APBJ; there is no correlation between the actual length of common channel and occurrence of its complications. The often overlooked and underdiagnosed subgroup of APBJ without biliary dilatation are 13.8 times more likely to develop biliary malignancy than the CDC group. We therefore suggest a necessary shift in surveillance strategies and advocate for routine screening of patients with APBJ for any biliary malignancy, even in the absence of CDC, and perhaps subject them to prophylactic cholecystectomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40178587What 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.