The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
2000
DOI: 10.1016/s0168-8278(00)80002-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Magnetic resonance cholangiography in patients with biliary disease: its role in primary sclerosing cholangitis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

6
98
1
6

Year Published

2001
2001
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 134 publications
(111 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
6
98
1
6
Order By: Relevance
“…A regression analysis conducted by Romangnuolo (21) indicated that MRCP accuracy may be higher for patients with a broad spectrum of possible pathologic conditions; however, the reasons for this observation are unclear. Other studies have indicated that MRCP accuracy for CBDS detection is lower in particular populations, for example patients with suspected primary sclerosing cholangitis (1).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…A regression analysis conducted by Romangnuolo (21) indicated that MRCP accuracy may be higher for patients with a broad spectrum of possible pathologic conditions; however, the reasons for this observation are unclear. Other studies have indicated that MRCP accuracy for CBDS detection is lower in particular populations, for example patients with suspected primary sclerosing cholangitis (1).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…12, 13 Abdalian et al 14 have recently reported the results of a routine screening by way of MRCP of 79 adult patients with AIH. In this study, evidence of large duct SC on MRCP was found in 10% of patients.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[25][26][27] The sensitivity of MRCP has also been shown to be less for small stones (<5 mm) and for stones lodged in the ampulla of Vater as can occur during biliary pancreatitis. [16,28,29] Many studies analysing the overall diagnostic accuracy of MRCP had a very limited number of participants [5][6][7][8][9]11,[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] with a range of 30 [5,8] to 315 patients. [11] Many of these studies had a variety of different types of patients and different and/or unclear definitions of a normal or negative MRCP.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[7][8][9]11] In contrast, other studies found MRCP to be potentially unreliable with low NPV [13,14] and/or relatively low sensitivity. [5,14,15] Furthermore, many studies on the subject have been conducted on a limited number of patients. [5][6][7][8][9]11,[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] Thus, the diagnostic accuracy of MRCP in clinical practise is somewhat controversial.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%