ArticleBMJ open2014
Comparison and validation of International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria for diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic cancer in a Taiwanese cohort.
Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Imaging of Pancreatic and Biliary Involvement in IgG4-Related Disease: Key Imaging Features, Diagnostic Criteria and Differential Diagnosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Steroid-responsive pancreatitides.World journal of clinical cases · 2020Review
- Steroid Therapy and Steroid Response in Autoimmune Pancreatitis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria (ICDC) designed to diagnosis autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) has been proposed recently. The diagnostic performance of ICDC has not been previously evaluated in diffuse-type and focal-type AIP, respectively, in comparison with the revised HISORt and Asian criteria in Taiwan.
designProspective, consecutive patient cohort.
settingLargest tertiary referred centre hospital managing pancreatic disease in Taiwan.
participants188 patients with AIP and 130 with tissue proofed pancreatic adenocarcinoma were consecutively recruited.
interventionsThe ICDC, as well as revised HISORt and Asian criteria, was applied for each participant. Each diagnostic criterion of ICDC was validated with special reference to levels 1 and 2 in diffuse-type and focal-type AIP. OUTCOMES: Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. Each diagnostic criterion of ICDC was validated with special reference to levels 1 and 2 in AIP and focal-type AIP.
resultsThe sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of ICDC for all AIP were the best: 89.4%, 100% and 93.7%, respectively, in these three criteria. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of ICDC for focal-type AIP (84.9%, 100% and 93.8%) were also the best among these three criteria. The area under the curve of receiver-operator characteristic of ICDC was 0.95 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.97) in all AIP and 0.93 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.97) in focal-type AIP.
conclusionsThe sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of ICDC are higher than the revised HISORt and Asian criteria. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of each criterion are higher in diffuse-type AIP compared with focal-type AIP. Under the same specificity, the sensitivity and accuracy of ICDC are higher than other diagnostic criteria in focal-type AIP. ICDC has better diagnostic performance compared with previously proposed diagnostic criteria in diffuse-type and focal-type AIP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.