ArticleAnnals of surgical treatment and research2016
Does the abdominal ultrasonography reliable in the diagnosis of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy in the first postoperative week?
Article in Annals of surgical treatment and research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- New Frontiers of Early Diagnosis of Pancreatic Fistula after Pancreaticoduodenectomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe evaluated the efficacy of ultrasonography (US) in the early postoperative period after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) to diagnose postoperative-pancreatic-fistula (POPF). Early diagnosis is important to prevent POPF-dependent mortality after PD. The value of radiological modalities for early diagnosing POPF is not clear.
methodsForty-five patients who underwent transabdominal-US in the first postoperative week after PD were retrospectively evaluated. Two types of grouping methods were performed. Firstly, peripancreatic or perianastomotic fluid collections at least 2 cm in diameter were considered to be a primary positive result on US. Patients then divided into 2 groups: group 1, US-positive and group 2, US-negative. Secondly, to increase the power of US, in addition to primary positive results, the presence of fever, leukocytosis or hyperamylasemia was considered to be a secondary positive result (group 1S). The remaining patients were considered to have secondary negative results (group 2S). The sensitivity and specificity for both grouping methods were calculated for the diagnosis of PF and clinically important PF (ciPF), according to the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula criteria.
resultsFor the first grouping method, the sensitivity was 36% and 28% and the specificity was 80% and 85% for PF and ciPF, respectively. For the second grouping method, the sensitivity was 36% and 29% and the spesificity was 74% and 81% for PF and ciPF, respectively. The unloculated fluid collections were not related to a significant increase in the risk of POPF (P = 0.694).
conclusionAbdominal-US has low sensitivity and high specificity for the early diagnosis of POPF after PD.
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.