SynthesisPediatric surgery international2025
The diagnostic performance of ultrasound features for biliary atresia: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Pediatric surgery international, 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.
- A prognostic analysis of cystic and non-cystic biliary atresia.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a screening model for early diagnosis of biliary atresia in neonates with cholestasis.Pediatric surgery international · 2025Article
- Biliary Atresia: advances and challenges in early diagnosis and management.Jornal de pediatriaReview
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
Abstract
Previous meta-analyses have evaluated the diagnostic performance of various ultrasound (US) features in differentiating biliary atresia (BA) from infantile cholestasis, but none have specifically addressed the accuracy of these features in differentiating cystic biliary atresia (CBA) from infants with jaundice and porta hepatis cysts. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biology Medicine, Wanfang, and VIP databases for articles that evaluated the US features of BA. We pooled effect estimates and constructed summary receiver operating characteristic curves, along with meta-regression and subgroup analysis. The summary sensitivity and specificity for TCS in differentiating BA from infantile cholestasis and CBA from infants with jaundice and porta hepatis cysts were 49.6% (95% CI 48.2%-51.0%) and 70.3% (95% CI 62.7%-77.2%), respectively, and 95.5% (95% CI 94.9%-96.1%) and 99.6% (95% CI 98.0%-100.0%) for the latter. For porta hepatis cysts, sensitivity and specificity were 17.1% (95% CI 13.7%-21.1%) and 84.2% (95% CI 72.1%-92.5%) in differentiating BA, and 99.0% (95% CI 97.4%-99.7%) and 91.3% (95% CI 82.8%-96.4%) for cyst size (length) in distinguishing CBA. For US-guided PTCC, sensitivity and specificity were 100.0% (95% CI 94.9%-100.0%) and 90.6% (95% CI 84.1%-95.0%) for differentiating BA from infantile cholestasis. TCS remains the relatively higher accurate and widely accepted conventional US feature for differentiating BA from infantile cholestasis and CBA from infants with jaundice and porta hepatis cysts. Porta hepatis cysts have the highest specificity for diagnosing BA, with size (length) aiding in distinguishing CBA. The undetected proportions of gallbladder abnormalities-related features were quite variable. Other US features, such as HSF, CBD, and liver stiffness, can support BA diagnosis. While US-guided PTCC is effective in certain cases, its clinical application is limited by technical complexity and patient requirements. Furthermore, artificial intelligence, especially deep learning, holds promising potential for improving the accuracy of BA diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40824323What 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.