Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28130609›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2017

Diagnostic performance of imaging modalities in chronic pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Y Issa, M A Kempeneers, H C van Santvoort, T L Bollen, S Bipat, M A Boermeester

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
13.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 136 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Clinical Practice Guideline—Acute and Chronic Pancreatitis.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2022
    Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Y IssaDepartment of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Meibergdreef 9, 1100DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M A KempeneersDepartment of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Meibergdreef 9, 1100DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
H C van SantvoortDepartment of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Meibergdreef 9, 1100DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
T L BollenDepartment of Radiology, St Antonius Ziekenhuis, Koekoekslaan 1, 3430EM, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
S BipatDepartment of Radiology, Academic Medical Centre, Meibergdreef 9, 1100DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M A BoermeesterDepartment of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, Meibergdreef 9, 1100DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.a.boermeester@amc.uva.nl.
Academic Medical Center · NLSt. Antonius Ziekenhuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesObtain summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity for imaging modalities for chronic pancreatitis (CP) assessment.

methodsA systematic search was performed in Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases for studies evaluating imaging modalities for the diagnosis of CP up to September 2016. A bivariate random-effects modeling was used to obtain summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity.

resultsWe included 43 studies evaluating 3460 patients. Sensitivity of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (82%; 95%CI: 76%-87%) was significant higher than that of abdominal ultrasonography (US) (67%; 95%CI: 53%-78%; P=0.018). The sensitivity estimates of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT) were 81% (95%CI: 70%-89%), 78% (95%CI: 69%-85%), and 75% (95%CI: 66%-83%), respectively, and did not differ significantly from each other. Estimates of specificity were comparable for EUS (90%; 95%CI: 82%-95%), ERCP (94%; 95%CI: 87%-98%), CT (91%; 95% CI: 81%-96%), MRI (96%; 95%CI: 90%-98%), and US (98%; 95%CI: 89%-100%).

conclusionsEUS, ERCP, MRI and CT all have comparable high diagnostic accuracy in the initial diagnosis of CP. EUS and ERCP are outperformers and US has the lowest accuracy. The choice of imaging modality can therefore be made based on invasiveness, local availability, experience and costs. KEY POINTS: • EUS, ERCP, MRI and CT have high diagnostic sensitivity for chronic pancreatitis • Diagnostic specificity is comparable for all imaging modalities • EUS and ERCP are outperformers and US has the lowest accuracy • The choice of imaging can be made based on clinical considerations.

Indexed as

Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeDiagnostic ImagingEndosonographyHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingPancreatitis, ChronicSensitivity and SpecificityTomography, X-Ray ComputedChronic pancreatitisDiagnostic accuracyDiagnostic imagingMeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID28130609
PMCPMC5544812
OpenAlexW2580085487

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.