ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
The utility of early cross-sectional imaging to evaluate suspected acute mild pancreatitis.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Revolutionizing the Pancreatic Tumor Diagnosis: Emerging Trends in Imaging Technologies: A Systematic Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Pooled it
- The evolving role of MRI in abdominopelvic emergencies: from problem-solving to first-line imaging.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Optimizing Imaging Adherence in Acute Pancreatitis: A Clinical Audit at a District General Hospital.Cureus · 2025Article
- Characterizing and quantifying low-value diagnostic imaging internationally: a scoping review.BMC medical imaging · 2022Article
- Imaging of inflammatory disease of the pancreas.The British journal of radiology · 2021Review
- Computed tomography scan imaging in diagnosing acute uncomplicated pancreatitis: UsefulnessWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are roughly 300,000 hospitalizations for acute pancreatitis annually in the United States. Many of the affected patients at our institution undergo computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) unnecessarily early during their admissions. We hypothesize that cross-sectional imaging within 48 h of admission in patients meeting the criteria for acute, mild pancreatitis is over-utilized and does not change management.
methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of patients with a discharge diagnosis of acute pancreatitis from our tertiary care institution from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2015. Inclusion criteria were a lipase more than three times the upper limit of normal and clinical suspicion of pancreatitis. Exclusion criteria were an etiology of pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, recurrent or chronic pancreatitis, severe pancreatitis, and ultrasound findings being the reason for imaging.
resultsOf the 166 patients who met the criteria for analysis, 105 (63.3%) underwent cross-sectional imaging within 48 h of presentation (CT: 104, MRI: 1). Of the examined CTs, 27 (26.0%) showed no abnormality and 55 (52.9%) revealed uncomplicated pancreatitis. The remaining 22 (21.2%) demonstrated at least one of the following: local complications, biliary ductal dilatation or other findings. On thorough chart review, only two patients received a beneficial change in management as a result of the early imaging.
conclusionsThis analysis supports current guidelines that early cross-sectional abdominal imaging (CT or MRI) in patients with suspected acute mild pancreatitis does not alter medical management. Early imaging may lead to unnecessary resource use and patient irradiation.
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.