Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33548019›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology2021

Idiopathic acute pancreatitis-A myth or reality? Role of endoscopic ultrasonography and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in its diagnosis.

Tuhin Mitra, Vinod Kumar Dixit, Dawesh Prakash Yadav, Sunit Kumar Shukla, Ashish Verma, Piyush Thakur, Ravikant Thakur

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Editorial commentary on the Indian Journal of Gastroenterology January-February 2021.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2021
    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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tuhin MitraDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sir Sunderlal Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221 005, India.
Vinod Kumar DixitDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sir Sunderlal Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221 005, India. drvkdixitbhu@gmail.com.
Dawesh Prakash YadavDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sir Sunderlal Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221 005, India.
Sunit Kumar ShuklaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sir Sunderlal Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221 005, India.
Ashish VermaDepartment of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221 005, India.
Piyush ThakurDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sir Sunderlal Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221 005, India.
Ravikant ThakurDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sir Sunderlal Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221 005, India.
Institute of Medical Sciences · INSir Sunderlal Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAround 10% to 30% patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) do not have a cause after the routine investigations, and are considered as having idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP). Establishing the etiology in such patients will prevent recurrences and evolution to chronic pancreatitis. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) characteristically are used to diagnose IAP when routine methods fail, but their exact role is not determined.

methodsThis prospective study was undertaken in a tertiary care hospital, in which patients admitted initially with diagnosis of IAP were evaluated. These patients underwent MRCP and EUS at least 4 weeks after an attack of AP. The results of EUS and MRCP were compared and analyzed with various clinical variables using suitable statistical tests.

resultsA total of 31 patients with IAP were included. EUS and/or MRCP was able to establish at least one etiology in 17 patients (54.8%). The diagnoses revealed were gallbladder (GB) microlithiasis, GB sludge, choledocholithiasis, pancreatobiliary ductal anomalies, pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm. Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of both the modalities, EUS (14/31) was able to diagnose more cases than MRCP (8/31). The diagnostic capability of EUS was lower in patients who had a cholecystectomy (12.5% vs. 56.5%; p = 0.03).

conclusionsEUS and MRCP are useful modalities in the etiological diagnosis of IAP and should be used in conjunction. EUS is better for establishing a possible biliary etiology and MRCP for an anatomical alteration in pancreatobiliary ducts.

Indexed as

AdultBiliary Tract DiseasesCholangiopancreatography, Magnetic ResonanceDiagnosis, DifferentialEndosonographyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultimodal ImagingPancreasPancreatic DiseasesPancreatitisProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsBiliary sludgeChronic pancreatitisEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyEndoscopic ultrasonographyGallstoneMagnetic resonance cholangiopancreatographyMicrolithiasisPancreas divisumPancreatitis

Identifiers

PMID33548019
OpenAlexW3127457955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.