Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9629506›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of pancreatology : official journal of the International Association of Pancreatology1998

The use of molecular technology in the differentiation of pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis.

S R Bramhall

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of pancreatology : official journal of the International Association of Pancreatology, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Head mass in chronic pancreatitis: Inflammatory or malignant.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2015
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

S R BramhallUniversity Department of Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK.
Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

conclusionIt is concluded that currently there are limitations in the use of some of the proposed tests, whereas in the future, further progress in our understanding of the molecular biology of pancreatic disease and the development and application of existing techniques should have a greater impact on clinical practice.

backgroundFifteen to 20% of patients with pancreatic cancer present with a resectable mass in the head of the pancreas, but there is a subgroup of patients for whom it is difficult to reach the correct diagnosis.

methodThis article addresses how molecular technology can be used to aid in the diagnosis of this group of patients. The clinical and scientific literature is reviewed by accessing papers through the Medline database.

resultsThis article reviews the limitations of conventional imaging techniques and the limitations of fine needle aspiration cytology and cytological examination of pancreatic duct secretions. The molecular biology of both pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis is then reviewed with emphasis on the common molecular defects seen in these diseases. The current use of molecular techniques in the examination of cytological and histological specimens, stool, blood, and pancreatic duct secretions and how this helps discriminate between benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas is addressed. Finally, the use of novel serum screening tests in groups at high risk of pancreatic cancer is discussed.

Indexed as

Chronic DiseaseDiagnosis, DifferentialHumansMolecular BiologyPancreatic NeoplasmsPancreatitis

Identifiers

PMID9629506
OpenAlexW2036922462

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.