Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25469022›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2014

Imaging tests for accurate diagnosis of acute biliary pancreatitis.

Valeriu Şurlin, Adrian Săftoiu, Daniela Dumitrescu

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of gastroenterology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Turkish Society of Gastroenterology: Pancreas Working Group, Acute Pancreatitis Committee Consensus Report.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Valeriu ŞurlinValeriu Surlin, 1 Clinic of Surgery, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Dolj, Romania.
Adrian SăftoiuValeriu Surlin, 1 Clinic of Surgery, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Dolj, Romania.
Daniela DumitrescuValeriu Surlin, 1 Clinic of Surgery, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Dolj, Romania.
University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova · RO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gallstones represent the most frequent aetiology of acute pancreatitis in many statistics all over the world, estimated between 40%-60%. Accurate diagnosis of acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP) is of outmost importance because clearance of lithiasis [gallbladder and common bile duct (CBD)] rules out recurrences. Confirmation of biliary lithiasis is done by imaging. The sensitivity of the ultrasonography (US) in the detection of gallstones is over 95% in uncomplicated cases, but in ABP, sensitivity for gallstone detection is lower, being less than 80% due to the ileus and bowel distension. Sensitivity of transabdominal ultrasonography (TUS) for choledocolithiasis varies between 50%-80%, but the specificity is high, reaching 95%. Diameter of the bile duct may be orientative for diagnosis. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) seems to be a more effective tool to diagnose ABP rather than endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), which should be performed only for therapeutic purposes. As the sensitivity and specificity of computerized tomography are lower as compared to state-of-the-art magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) or EUS, especially for small stones and small diameter of CBD, the later techniques are nowadays preferred for the evaluation of ABP patients. ERCP has the highest accuracy for the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis and is used as a reference standard in many studies, especially after sphincterotomy and balloon extraction of CBD stones. Laparoscopic ultrasonography is a useful tool for the intraoperative diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. Routine exploration of the CBD in cases of patients scheduled for cholecystectomy after an attack of ABP was not proven useful. A significant rate of the so-called idiopathic pancreatitis is actually caused by microlithiasis and/or biliary sludge. In conclusion, the general algorithm for CBD stone detection starts with anamnesis, serum biochemistry and then TUS, followed by EUS or MRCP. In the end, bile duct microscopic analysis may be performed by bile harvested during ERCP in case of recurrent attacks of ABP and these should be followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ImagingAcute DiseaseAnimalsGallstonesHumansPancreatitisPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisRisk FactorsBiliaryEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyEndoscopic ultrasonographyLithiasisMagnetic resonance cholangiopancreatographyPancreatitis

Identifiers

PMID25469022
PMCPMC4248197
OpenAlexW2081630128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.