Author, year | Type of imaging test | Study characteristics | Patient characteristics | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Country | Study design | Reference standard | No. of patients | Mean/Median age | Male/Female | ||
Adamek et al. 2000 | MRCP vs. ERCP | Germany | Pro | Pathology and/or follow-up imaging | 124 | Mean(range):55.1(19–80) | 76/48 |
Buscail et al. 1995 | US vs. ERCP vs. CT vs. EUS | France | Pro | Pathology and/or follow-up imaging | 81 | Mean ± SD: (51 ± 12) | 60/21 |
Dramaix et al. 1980 | US vs. CT | France | Pro | Pathology and/or follow-up imaging | 50 | NA | 33/17 |
Engjom et al. 2018 | US vs. EUS | Norway | Pro | Follow-up imaging | 92 | Mean ± SD: (54 ± 15.3) | 36/56 |
Fusari et al. 2010 | MRI vs. CT | Italy | Pro | Pathology | 40 | Mean ± SD: (62 ± 13) | 22/18 |
Gebel et al. 1985 | US vs. ERCP | France | Retro | NA | 56 | NA | NA |
Glasbrenner et al. 2000 | EUS vs. ERCP | Germany | Pro | Pathology | 95 | Median(range):54(20–75) | 67/28 |
Gmelin et al. 1981 | US vs. ERCP vs. CT | Germany | Pro | Pathology and/or follow-up imaging | 41 | Mean:54 | 28/13 |
Lammer et al. 1980 | CT vs. ERCP | Germany | NA | NA | 107 | NA | NA |
Lawson et al. 1978 | US vs. ERCP | USA | Retro | Pathology and/or follow-up imaging | 75 | NA | NA |
Lin et al. 1989 | US vs. EUS | China | NA | NA | 33 | NA | NA |
Nordaas et al. 2021 | US vs. CT | Norway | Cross-sectional | Follow-up imaging | 73 | Mean ± SD: (54 ± 13) | 30/43 |
Pungpapong et al. 2007 | MRCP vs. EUS | USA | Pro | Pathology and/or follow-up imaging | 99 | Mean ± SD: (55 ± 14) | 47/52 |
Scarabino et al. 1989 | US vs. ERCP vs. CT | Italy | NA | NA | 63 | NA | NA |
Schlaudraff et al. 2008 | MRCP vs. sMRCP | Germany | Pro | Pathology and/or follow-up imaging | 67 | Mean ± SD: (56 ± 15) | 36/31 |
Swobodnik et al. 1983 | US vs. ERCP vs. CT | Germany | Pro | Pathology and/or follow-up imaging | 75 | Mean(range):49.3(27–82) | 42/33 |
Zuccaro et al. 2009 | MRCP vs. sMRCP | USA | Retro | Follow-up imaging | 69 | Mean ± SD: (43.5 ± 12) | 24/45 |