Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42322420›Full record

ReviewAbdominal radiology (New York)2026

A systematic imaging approach to pathology within the retroperitoneal space.

Wilfred Furtado, Amanda Gibson, Leslie Nelson, Aman Khurana, James Lee, Joseph Owen, Andres Ayoob

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Wilfred FurtadoDepartment of Radiology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA. wrfu223@uky.edu.
Amanda GibsonDepartment of Radiology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA.
Leslie NelsonDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, USA.
Aman KhuranaDepartment of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, USA.
James LeeDepartment of Radiology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA.
Joseph OwenDepartment of Radiology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA.
Andres AyoobDepartment of Radiology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA. andres.ayoob@uky.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Retroperitoneal diseases encompass a broad and heterogeneous spectrum, ranging from benign conditions to aggressive malignancies. Clinical presentation is often nonspecific, and physical examination is limited by the deep location of the retroperitoneum. Consequently, cross-sectional imaging-primarily computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-is central to detection, characterization, and staging, playing a key role in guiding management and surgical planning. Imaging evaluation is challenging due to overlapping appearances, difficulty determining the site of origin and extent of disease in large or infiltrative processes, and the complex, incompletely understood retroperitoneal anatomy. A structured, anatomy-based interpretive framework fosters improved diagnostic accuracy. Initial assessment focuses on localization and lesion composition. Distinguishing between pathology arising from retroperitoneal organs and primary retroperitoneal processes, combined with characterization of composition (e.g., solid, cystic/fluid, fat, calcification, gas, or mixed), allows generation of a focused differential diagnosis. Integration of key imaging and clinical features then refines and prioritizes diagnostic considerations. Common pitfalls in interpretation are related to technique, mischaracterization of lesion location or composition, and underestimation of disease extent. Recognition of these potential sources of error, coupled with a systematic approach to image interpretation, can improve diagnostic accuracy and better inform clinical decision-making in retroperitoneal pathology.

Indexed as

Cystic primary retroperitoneal massesFat containing primary retroperitoneal massesPrimary retroperitoneal massesPrimary retroperitoneal pathologyRetroperitoneumSolid primary retroperitoneal masses

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.