ReviewAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
A systematic imaging approach to pathology within the retroperitoneal space.
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.
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
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
Identifiers
42322420What 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.