Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42751440›Full record

ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound

EUS

Jin-Hui Yi, Jin-Jie Xu, Jia-Yi Ma, Xiao-Xian Zeng, Teng Wang, Jia-Qi Wang, Song-Lin Zhang, Pei-Dong Han, Xiao-Yu Zhou, Xi He and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. 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

15 authors.

Jin-Hui YiSchool of Medicine, NanKai University, Tianjin, China.
Jin-Jie XuDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Hospital of 32521 Troops of Chinese People's Liberation Army, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu Province, China.
Jia-Yi MaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Xiao-Xian ZengDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Shenshan Medical Center, Memorial Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Shanwei, Guangdong, China.
Teng WangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Jia-Qi WangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Song-Lin ZhangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Pei-Dong HanDepartment of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Xiao-Yu ZhouDepartment of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Xi HeDepartment of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Guang-Ming ChenDepartment of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Ning-Li ChaiDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Zhao-Shen LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Dan WangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Liang-Hao HuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Distinguishing pancreatic cancer from inflammatory conditions in patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP) is challenging. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and EUS are key diagnostic modalities, but their optimal use (alone or in combination) for accurate diagnosis remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic efficacy of EUS and contrast-enhanced MRI for focal pancreatic lesions in CP patients. Methods: This single-center retrospective study enrolled CP patients with indeterminate focal pancreatic lesions detected by contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Patients underwent contrast-enhanced MRI, EUS, or both, and were categorized into 3 groups: MRI group, EUS group, and Combination group. Primary diagnoses were based on the reports of imaging or EUS-guided tissue acquisition, while final diagnoses were confirmed by surgical pathology or follow-up. The primary outcome was diagnostic performance. Results: A total of 103 patients were enrolled: 48 in the MRI group, 10 in the EUS group, and 45 in the Combination group. There were no statistically significant differences in diagnostic performance between these 2 independent groups. However, in the paired subgroup analysis, EUS demonstrated significantly higher accuracy than MRI (84.4% Conclusion: EUS was a superior individual diagnostic modality to MRI for evaluating focal pancreatic lesions in CP patients, and MRI did not provide significant additional diagnostic benefit over EUS alone.

Indexed as

diagnostic yieldsEUSmagnetic resonance imagingpancreatic cancer

Identifiers

PMID42751440
PMCPMC13581383

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.