Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40711552›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2026

Resected gallbladder polyps: comparison of the 2022 Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound and Joint European Societies Guidelines' diagnostic performance.

Bipin P Nanda, Brian M Moloney, Ariel Gershon, Chelsea C Y Kim, Khaled Y Elbanna, Hyun-Jung Jang, Xiaoyang Liu, Klaudia M Nowak, Korosh Khalili

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Bipin P Nanda *Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Brian M Moloney *Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Ariel GershonDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Chelsea C Y KimJoint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System and Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Khaled Y ElbannaDepartment of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Hyun-Jung JangDepartment of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Xiaoyang LiuDepartment of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Klaudia M NowakDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Korosh KhaliliDepartment of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. korosh.khalili@uhn.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3496-8744

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the diagnostic performance of the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound (SRU) and the 2022 Joint European Societies (JES) Guidelines regarding management at presentation of gallbladder polyps ≥ 7 mm. MATERIALS AND

methodsAll patients with ≥ 7 mm polyps reported on ultrasound scans at a hepatobiliary centre with eventual cholecystectomy over 20 years were retrospectively included. Four blinded radiologists reviewed selected images/clips. Shape and wall-thickening were used to categorize polyps. Imaging and relevant clinical features were used to derive guideline management into binary categories of no follow-up/follow vs refer-to-surgeon. Histological neoplastic polyps were defined as a positive outcome. Reliability, sensitivity, and specificity for both guidelines were tabulated.

resultsOne hundred thirty-five patients (mean age 51.9 years, 62 female [45.9%]) with a median polyp size of 12 mm (range 7-45) formed the study cohort. Twenty-eight out of one hundred thirty-five (20.7%) of patients had neoplastic polyps (1 low-grade dysplasia, 5 pyloric gland adenoma, 8 intracholecystic papillary neoplasm, 12 carcinoma in situ/carcinoma, 2 metastases). Pooled kappa values for SRUs and JES's polyp risk categorization were 0.70 (CI: 0.64-0.76) and 0.64 (CI: 0.57-0.71) for intra-observer and 0.41 (CI: 0.35-0.46) and 0.47 (CI: -0.40 to 0.53) for inter-observer agreement. SRU's low and indeterminate risk polyps had an odds ratio of 4.4 (p = 0.002) and 16.9 (p < 0.001) of being neoplastic compared to "very-low risk" polyps. Sensitivity, specificity and AUROC (CI) for SRU were 62% (43-80), 90% (85-95), 0.76 (0.66-0.86), and JES were 90% (79-100), 41% (32-49), 0.66 (0.58-0.73) respectively. The differences between the sensitivity and specificity of the two guidelines were significant (p = 0.002 and < 0.0001, respectively).

conclusionFor ≥ 7 mm polyps, the SRU guidelines have significantly higher specificity with acceptable sensitivity, whereas the JES guidelines have significantly higher sensitivity with low specificity. KEY POINTS: Question What are the diagnostic performances of the 2022 SRU and the JES guidelines for the management of ≥ 7 mm gallbladder polyps? Findings The SRU guidelines were significantly more specific but less sensitive than the JES guidelines. Clinical relevance For ≥ 7 mm polyps, the 2022 SRU guidelines would result in fewer surgical referrals and may be more applicable to the low-incidence populations of Europe and North America.

Indexed as

CholecystectomyGallbladderGallbladder NeoplasmsPolypsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overEuropeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOverdiagnosisPractice Guidelines as TopicRadiologistsReferral and ConsultationGallbladder neoplasms/diagnosisPolypsPractice guidelines as topicReproducibility of resultsUltrasonography

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.