Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32213015›Full record

Observational studyUnited European gastroenterology journal2020

The diagnostic work-up and outcomes of 'presumed' idiopathic acute pancreatitis: A post-hoc analysis of a multicentre observational cohort.

Nora D Hallensleben, Devica S Umans, Stefan Aw Bouwense, Robert C Verdonk, Tessa Eh Romkens, Ben J Witteman, Matthijs P Schwartz, Marcel B Spanier, Robert Laheij, Hjalmar C van Santvoort and 4 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in United European gastroenterology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Proteomics in pancreatic cancer.Biomarker research · 2025
    Review
  10. Endoscopic Management of Recurrent Acute Pancreatitis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

14 authors.

Nora D HallenslebenDepartment of Gastroenterology, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7433-0200
Devica S UmansDepartment of Research and Development, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands.
Stefan Aw BouwenseDepartment of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Robert C VerdonkDepartment of Gastroenterology, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands.
Tessa Eh RomkensDepartment of Gastroenterology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands.
Ben J WittemanDepartment of Gastroenterology, Gelderse Vallei Hospital, Ede, the Netherlands.
Matthijs P SchwartzDepartment of Gastroenterology, Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, the Netherlands.
Marcel B SpanierDepartment of Gastroenterology, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, the Netherlands.
Robert LaheijDepartment of Gastroenterology, St. Elisabeth - Tweesteden Hospital, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
Hjalmar C van SantvoortDepartment of Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands.
Marc G BesselinkDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Jeanin E van HooftDepartment of Gastroenterology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Marco J BrunoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAfter standard diagnostic work-up, the aetiology of acute pancreatitis remains unknown in 16-27% of cases, a condition referred to as idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP). Determining the aetiology of pancreatitis is essential, as it may direct treatment in the acute phase and guides interventions to prevent recurrent pancreatitis.

methodsBetween 2008 and 2015, patients with acute pancreatitis were registered prospectively in 19 Dutch hospitals. Patients who had a negative initial diagnostic work-up with regard to the underlying aetiology of their pancreatitis were labelled 'presumed' IAP. The aim of this study was to assess the use of diagnostic modalities and their yield to establish an aetiology in 'presumed' IAP, and to assess recurrence rates both with and without treatment.

resultsOut of the 1632 registered patients, 191 patients had a first episode of 'presumed' IAP, of whom 176 (92%) underwent additional diagnostic testing: CT (

conclusionAdditional diagnostic testing revealed an aetiology in one-third of 'presumed' IAP patients. The aetiology found was mostly biliary, but occasionally neoplasms were found. Identification of an aetiology with subsequent treatment reduced the rate of recurrence.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeCholangiopancreatography, Magnetic ResonanceDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGuideline AdherenceHumansImmunoglobulin GMaleMiddle AgedPancreasPancreatic NeoplasmsPancreatitisPractice Guidelines as TopicImmunoglobulin Gdiagnostic work-upendoscopic ultrasoundIdiopathic acute pancreatitismagnetic resonance cholangiopancreatographytransabdominal ultrasound

Identifiers

PMID32213015
PMCPMC7184667

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.