ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
Endoscopic ultrasound as a diagnostic and predictive tool in idiopathic acute 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.
- AEG-AESPANC-OPGE-SIED-SPG Ibero-Latin American Guidelines on Acute Pancreatitis (iLATAM-AP).United European gastroenterology journal · 2026Guideline
- Acute Necrotizing Pancreatitis-Advances and Challenges in Management for Optimal Clinical Outcomes.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Article
- Incidence of recurrent and chronic pancreatitis after acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Endoscopic Ultrasound to Identify the Actual Cause of Idiopathic Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Endoscopic ultrasound diagnostic gain over computed tomography and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in defining etiology of idiopathic acute pancreatitis.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 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
backgroundEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is useful in the diagnostic workup of idiopathic acute pancreatitis but its role as a predictor of recurrence has not been thoroughly assessed. Our aim was to study the performance of EUS in idiopathic acute pancreatitis, its impact on the natural history of the disease, and the factors related to recurrence.
methodsPatients with idiopathic acute pancreatitis referred to our endoscopy unit were enrolled and followed, with assessment of the performance of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), cholecystectomy, and the incidence of recurrence. EUS findings and recurrence rates were compared between patients with a first episode or recurrent attacks and in patients with previous cholecystectomy versus those with gallbladder in situ.
resultsOne hundred six patients were included (mean follow up: 53.59±27.79 months). Biliary disease related to stones was the most common finding on EUS (49.1%), and patients referred for recurrent attacks showed the highest recurrence rate during follow up (57.1%). ERCP or cholecystectomy reduced recurrences to 14.3% in patients with biliary disease. Age under 65 (odds ratio [OR] 3.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21-10.44; P=0.02), previous cholecystectomy (OR 3.19, 95%CI 1.11-9.17; P=0.03), and no lithiasis on EUS (OR 2.87, 95%CI 1.04-7.87; P=0.04) were independent risks factors for recurrence.
conclusionsEUS-directed ERCP/cholecystectomy was associated with lower relapse rates in idiopathic acute pancreatitis. Along with age and gallbladder status, it provides predictive information about recurrence likelihood.
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.