ArticleEuropean radiology2025
ESGAR consensus statement on MR imaging in primary sclerosing cholangitis.
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 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 Imaging of Pancreatic and Biliary Involvement in IgG4-Related Disease: Key Imaging Features, Diagnostic Criteria and Differential Diagnosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis: Diagnosis, Management, and Clinical Challenges.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Validation of Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography Metrics in Prediction of Transplant-free Survival in Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis.Journal of clinical and experimental hepatologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo provide a consensus statement and recommendations on MR imaging in primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC).
methodsThe European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) convened a multinational European panel of experts selected based on a literature review and their leadership in the field. A modified Delphi process was adopted to draft a list of statements. For each statement, the panelists indicated the level of agreement using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 means "no agreement," 2 means "poor agreement," 3 means "slight agreement," 4 means "fair agreement," and 5 means "complete agreement." The median score for each statement was collected. The level of evidence was reported according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Descriptive statistics were used to rate agreement levels and the consensus' internal reliability.
resultsThe 12 voting committee members were from Italy (n = 4, 33.4%), Austria (n = 2, 16.7%), Sweden (n = 1, 8.3%), France (n = 1, 8.3%), the United States (n = 1, 8.3%), Switzerland (n = 1, 8.3%), and Belgium (n = 2, 16.7%). The final questionnaire consisted of 55 statements. The agreement reached by the expert panel was complete for 23 statements (41.8%), fair for 16 (29.1%), slight for 15 (27.2%), and poor for 1 (1.9%). Statements that received complete agreement were used to structure a reporting template.
conclusionsThis statement paper recommends how and when to perform MRI in PSC patients. A structured reporting template has been created to improve quality care and communication among radiologists and clinicians. KEY POINTS: Question A standard MR protocol and the most common imaging features to be reported are fundamental for the correct evaluation of primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) patients. Findings Twelve expert radiologists reported which are the most important imaging features and how and when to perform MR in PSC patients. Clinical relevance The identified statements reported in this paper and the structured reporting template are useful for radiologists and clinicians to help correctly manage PSC patients.
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.