Which imaging modalities should be used for biliary strictures of unknown aetiology? [16]

Gut

Volumn 56, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 1032-

  Domagk, Dirk ^a   Wessling, Johannes ^a   Conrad, Beate ^a   Fischbach, Roman ^a   Schleicher, Christina ^a   Böcker, Werner ^b   Senninger, Norbert ^a   Heinecke, Achim ^a   Heindel, Walter ^a   Domschke, Wolfram ^a   Kucharzik, Torsten ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL MÜNSTER   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BILE DUCT OBSTRUCTION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ECHOGRAPHY; ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY; GOLD THERAPY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; JAUNDICE; LAPAROTOMY; LETTER; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

BILE DUCT NEOPLASMS; CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY, ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE; CHOLESTASIS; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 34347259595     PISSN: 00175749     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/gut.2007.123315     Document Type: Letter

References (9)

1. Rösch T, Meining A, Frühmorgen S, et al. A prospective comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of ERCP, MRCP, CT, and EUS in biliary strictures. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;55:870-6.
2. Domagk D, Wessling J, Reimer P, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, intraductal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in bile duct strictures: a prospective comparison or imaging diagnostics with nistopathological correlation. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:1684-9.
3. Adamek HE, Albert J, Breer H, et al. Pancreatic cancer detection with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a prospective controlled study. Lancet 2000;356:190-3.
4. Adamek HE, Albert J, Weitz M, et al. A prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in patients with suspected bile duct obstruction. Gut 1998;43:680-3.
5. Scheiman JM, Carlos RC, Barnett JL, et al. Can endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography replace ERCP in patients with suspected biliary disease? A prospective trial and cost analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:2900-4.
6. Sahai AV, Devonshire D, Yeoh KG, et al. The decision-making value of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in patients seen in a referral center for suspected biliary and pancreatic disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:2074-80.
7. Varghese JC, Farrell MA, Courtney G, et al. A prospective comparison of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the evaluation of patients with suspected biliary tract diseases. Clin Radiol 1999;54:513-20.
8. Bipat S, Phoa SS, van Delden OM, et al. Ultrasonography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis and determining resectability of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2005;29:438-45.
9. Rösch T, Hofrichter K, Frimberger E, et al. ERCP or EUS for tissue diagnosis of biliary strictures? A prospective comparative study. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;60:390-6.