ArticleEmergency radiology2026
Comparative evaluation of ultrasound and computed tomography in the detection of imaging findings and complications of acute cholecystitis: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGallstones (cholelithiasis) are common, with a significant portion of affected individuals developing acute cholecystitis, which can lead to severe complications. While ultrasound (US) is typically the first imaging method used, multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) may be better at detecting more complex scenarios. This study aimed to compare the detection of imaging features and complications of acute cholecystitis between US and MDCT in a cohort of confirmed cases, and to evaluate their complementary roles in clinical practice.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted including 134 adults with clinically suspected acute cholecystitis who underwent same-day US and MDCT, with subsequent confirmation by pathology or intervention. Two radiologists independently reviewed all imaging studies, and the detection of imaging features and complications was compared.
resultsUS showed significantly higher detection rates than MDCT for gallbladder wall thickening (98.5% vs. 66.4%, P < 0.001), sludge (35.1% vs. 14.9%, P < 0.001), and pericholecystic fluid (75.4% vs. 47.8%, P < 0.001). Conversely, MDCT more frequently identified complications such as choledocholithiasis (8.2% vs. 2.2% by US, P = 0.041) and liver abscesses (6.7% vs. 1.5% by US, P = 0.035). MDCT also identified findings consistent with cholecystitis in 7 patients (5.2%) not detected by US and was associated with a change in management of 20 patients (14.9%).
conclusionsUS remains effective as a first-line modality for detecting acute cholecystitis, while MDCT offers additional value in identifying complications and influencing management. Together, these findings support a complementary, rather than substitutive, role for the two modalities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42098387What 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.