ReviewDeutsches Arzteblatt international2025
The Differential Diagnosis and Management of Pancreatic Cystic Neoplasms.
Review in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transabdominal ultrasound subclassification of pancreatic serous cystic neoplasms: correlation with MRI and characterization of subtype-specific features.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Compare the features of several mainstream AI software programmes: explore their accuracy and repeatability in solving queries related to pancreatic cysts.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Quantitative pancreatic MRI in diabetes mellitus: current advances and future directions.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Pediatric Pancreatic Pseudocyst Presenting as a Solid Perigastric Mass: An Uncommon Diagnostic Pitfall.Case reports in pediatrics · 2026Article
- From the anal canal to the pancreas: diagnostic challenges of radiologic surveillance in detecting rare but potentially curable metastases - a case report.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prevalence of pancreatic cyst lesions in the general population worldwide is 16%. The majority of these cysts are intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN), which are associated with a risk of developing pancreatic cancer. In this article, we summarize the current knowledge of the differential diagnosis and management of cystic pancreatic neoplasms.
methodsThis narrative review is based on a selective search for pertinent literature (1 January 2014 to 9 January 2025).
resultsMost cysts are less than 10 mm in diameter and have practically no potential for malignant transformation. If a small cyst remains unchanged in the absence of risk factors, monitoring can be ended five years after initial detection. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the best method of characterizing and following up such lesions. If the diagnosis is unclear, endosonography should be performed. For IPMN, the most common type of pancreatic cystic neoplasm, the international Kyoto guideline 2024 contains a revised management algorithm based on risk factors. IPMN with high-grade dysplasia is an ideal indication for surgical resection. Serous cystic adenomas should generally not be operated on, and mucinous cystic neoplasia or a cystic neuroendocrine tumor of the pancreas should be operated on only if it has reached a certain size. Minimally inva - sive and parenchyma-sparing techniques are now being increasingly used in pancreatic surgery.
conclusionOncological criteria as well as potential surgical risks and long-term sequelae must enter into the decision whether a pancreatic lesion should be resected. Exocrine and endocrine insufficiency are relevant and sometimes irreversible complications.
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.