Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24424563›Full record

ArticleJournal of computer assisted tomography

Differentiating autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic adenocarcinoma using dual-phase computed tomography.

Atif Zaheer, Vikesh K Singh, Venkata S Akshintala, Satomi Kawamoto, Salina D Tsai, Kenneth L Gage, Elliot K Fishman

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computer assisted tomography. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Steroid-responsive pancreatitides.World journal of clinical cases · 2020
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Atif ZaheerFrom the *The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, †Pancreatitis Center, and ‡Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD.
Vikesh K Singh
Venkata S Akshintala
Satomi Kawamoto
Salina D Tsai
Kenneth L Gage
Elliot K Fishman
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

Training for Clinician Scientists in Imaging ResearchT32EB006351 · NIBIB · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI POMPER, MARTIN G · 2006 to 2022
$4.0M
NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB006351
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis article aimed to study features on dual-phase computed tomography (CT) that help differentiate autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) from pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA).

methodsThe CTs of 32 patients with AIP were matched with equal number of PA and were independently evaluated by 3 radiologists who assigned a diagnosis of AIP, PA, or unsure. Interobserver agreement between radiologists was evaluated using κ statistics.

resultsThe mean accuracies for diagnosing AIP and PA were 68% and 83%, respectively. There was moderate agreement between radiologists (κ, 0.58; P < 0.0001). The most common findings for AIP were common bile duct (CBD) stricture (63%), bile duct wall hyperenhancement (47%), and diffuse parenchymal enlargement (41%). The most common findings for PA were focal mass (78%; κ, 0.58; P < 0.0001) and pancreatic ductal dilatation (69%; κ, 0.7; P < 0.0001). Findings helpful for diagnosing AIP were diffuse enlargement, parenchymal atrophy as well as absence of pancreatic duct dilatation and focal mass. Findings helpful for diagnosing PA were focal mass and pancreatic ductal dilatation. Misdiagnosis of PA in patients with AIP was due to focal mass, pancreatic duct dilatation, and pancreatic atrophy, whereas misdiagnosis of AIP in patients with PA was due to absence of atrophy, presence of diffuse enlargement, and peripancreatic halo.

conclusionsDiffuse enlargement, hypoenhancement, and characteristic peripancreatic halo are strong indicators for a diagnosis of AIP. Radiologists demonstrated moderate agreement in distinguishing AIP from PA on the basis of CT imaging.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAutoimmune DiseasesContrast MediaDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansIohexolMaleMiddle AgedPancreatic NeoplasmsPancreatitisRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedContrast MediaIohexol

Identifiers

PMID24424563
PMCPMC4394855
OpenAlexW2411893961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.