SynthesisEuropean radiology2021
Meta-analysis of CT and MRI for differentiation of autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
Synthesis in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Differentiation of autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic adenocarcinoma using CT characteristics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2023Pooled it
- Diagnostic Imaging of Pancreatic and Biliary Involvement in IgG4-Related Disease: Key Imaging Features, Diagnostic Criteria and Differential Diagnosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in chronic and autoimmune pancreatitis: diagnosis, prognosis, and personalized management.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging and multi-slice spiral computed tomography in the diagnosis of pancreatitis.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Deep learning automatic segmentation and radiomics model for diagnosing pancreatic solid neoplasms in MRI.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Adherence to United European Gastroenterology Guidelines on Diagnosis and Therapy of Immunoglobulin-G4-Related Digestive Disease.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025Article
- CT findings in surgically treated focal pancreatic disease - a retrospective study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- Pancreatic Doppelgängers: A Case of Misdiagnosed Identity.ACG case reports journal · 2025Article
- Effective Extracellular Volume Fraction Determined by Equilibrium Contrast-Enhanced CT for Differentiating Autoimmune Pancreatitis from Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- CT surveillance for type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis: cumulative radiation dose and diagnostic performance for disease relapse.European radiology · 2025Article
- Deep learning-based MVIT-MLKA model for accurate classification of pancreatic lesions: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
- Oral microbiome as a diagnostic biomarker for pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.Journal of oral microbiology · 2025Review
- Hidden in plain sight: commonly missed early signs of pancreatic cancer on CT.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Review
- Radiology domain in the diagnosis of IgG4-RD according to the 2019 American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism classification.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- Autoimmune pancreatitis: Cornerstones and future perspectives.World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Review
- Article
- Potential applications of PET/MRI in non-oncologic conditions within the abdomen and pelvis.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Review
- A multidomain fusion model of radiomics and deep learning to discriminate between PDAC and AIP based onJapanese journal of radiology · 2023Article
- Serum biomarkers for the differentiation of autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023Review
- Establishment and Validation of a Nomogram Prediction Model for the Severe Acute Pancreatitis.Journal of inflammation research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo systematically determine the diagnostic performance of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for differentiating autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), with a comparison between the two imaging modalities.
methodsLiterature search was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify original articles published between 2009 and 2019 reporting the diagnostic performance of CT and MRI for differentiating AIP from PDAC. The meta-analytic sensitivity and specificity of CT and MRI were calculated, and compared using a bivariate random effects model. Subgroup analysis for differentiating focal AIP from PDAC was performed.
resultsOf the 856 articles screened, 11 eligible articles are remained, i.e., five studies for CT, four for MRI, and two for both. The meta-analytic summary sensitivity and specificity of CT were 59% (95% confidence interval [CI], 41-75%) and 99% (95% CI, 88-100%), respectively, while those of MRI were 84% (95% CI, 68-93%) and 97% (95% CI, 87-99%). MRI had a significantly higher meta-analytic summary sensitivity than CT (84% vs. 59%, p = 0.02) but a similar specificity (97% vs. 99%, p = 0.18). In the subgroup analysis for focal AIP, the sensitivity for distinguishing between focal AIP and PDAC was lower than that for the overall analysis. MRI had a higher sensitivity than CT (76% vs. 50%, p = 0.28) but a similar specificity (97% vs. 98%, p = 0.07).
conclusionMRI might be clinically more useful to evaluate patients with AIP, particularly for differentiating AIP from PDAC. KEY POINTS: • MRI had an overall good diagnostic performance to differentiate AIP from PDAC with a meta-analytic summary estimate of 83% for sensitivity and of 97% for specificity. • CT had a very high specificity (99%), but a suboptimal sensitivity (59%) for differentiating AIP from PDAC. • Compared with CT, MRI had a higher sensitivity, but a similar specificity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33146798What 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.