ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy of Clinical Assessment, Computed Tomography (CT), and Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography (MRI/MRCP) in Evaluating Common Bile Duct Stones.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Age-Associated Differences in Ductal Involvement in Biliary Lithiasis: A Consecutive MRCP Cohort Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- 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
purposeTo determine the most effective method for diagnosing common bile duct (CBD) stones, this research retrospectively compares the diagnostic accuracy of initial clinical evaluation, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRI/MRCP). The goal is to identify the optimal non-invasive strategy to guide patient management and prevent unnecessary invasive procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). An accurate diagnosis of choledocholithiasis is essential for proper patient care. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis single-center, retrospective analysis involved 691 adult patients who were under evaluation for suspected choledocholithiasis. The effectiveness of clinical assessment, multidetector CT, and MRI/MRCP was measured against definitive diagnoses obtained from surgical or procedural findings. For each diagnostic method, the study calculated sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).
resultsCBD stones were present in 311 of the 691 patients, a prevalence of 45%. MRI/MRCP was the most effective diagnostic tool, with a sensitivity of 92.7%, a specificity of 91.9%, and an accuracy of 92.3%. In comparison, CT scans yielded a sensitivity of 73.2%, a specificity of 82.9%, and an accuracy of 78.3%. Clinical assessment resulted in a sensitivity of 71.1%, a specificity of 87.1%, and an accuracy of 80%. The AUC for MRI/MRCP (0.95) was markedly higher than that for both CT (0.83; p<0.001) and clinical assessment (0.81; p<0.001). There was no significant difference in the diagnostic performance between CT and clinical assessment (p=0.45).
conclusionFor the non-invasive identification of CBD stones, MRI/MRCP provides superior diagnostic accuracy compared to both CT and clinical evaluation. It is recommended as the top imaging choice for patients with suspected choledocholithiasis.
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.