SynthesisJournal of ultrasound2026
CEUS in the evaluation of focal salivary gland lesions: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of ultrasound, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreoperative differentiation of benign and malignant salivary gland lesions remains challenging. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) enables real-time assessment of tumor microvascularization and has emerged as a promising adjunct to conventional ultrasound. PURPOSE: To systematically review the evidence on CEUS in focal salivary gland lesions and to evaluate its diagnostic accuracy, including feature-level diagnostic performance. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic search of PubMed was conducted for studies published from database inception to December 2025, evaluating contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in focal salivary gland lesions, using histopathology as the reference standard. Qualitative and quantitative CEUS features were synthesized. Diagnostic accuracy evidence was assessed at both study and feature levels. Risk of bias was evaluated using the QUADAS-2 tool.
resultsTen studies comprising 663 focal salivary gland lesions (470 benign and 193 malignant) were included in the qualitative synthesis. Malignant lesions were consistently associated with heterogeneous enhancement, ill-defined or blurred margins, non-enhancing areas suggestive of necrosis, and altered contrast kinetics. Quantitative CEUS analyses demonstrated shorter time to peak enhancement, higher peak enhancement, steeper wash-in slopes, and larger areas under the time-intensity curve in malignant tumors compared with benign lesions. Only a limited number of studies reported diagnostic accuracy outcomes using predefined criteria, and substantial heterogeneity in diagnostic thresholds and study design precluded reliable pooled meta-analysis. Across the two studies reporting complete diagnostic accuracy data, CEUS sensitivity ranged from 72.1 to 80.0%, whereas specificity ranged from 78.9 to 91.7%. Feature-level analysis indicated that ill-defined enhancement margins were highly specific for malignancy, whereas inhomogeneous enhancement showed higher sensitivity but limited specificity. Wash-in and wash-out kinetics demonstrated variable diagnostic performance across studies.
conclusionCEUS provides valuable functional information for the evaluation of focal salivary gland lesions and complements conventional ultrasound by depicting tumor microvascular characteristics. While several qualitative and quantitative CEUS features are associated with malignancy and may aid preoperative risk stratification, methodological heterogeneity and the limited number of high-quality diagnostic accuracy studies currently restrict definitive conclusions. CEUS should be considered an adjunctive imaging tool rather than a standalone alternative to histopathological diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.