ReviewDEN open2022
Biopsy diagnosis of type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis: Does it bring a conclusion or confusion?
Review in DEN open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic Diagnostics for IgG4-Related Pancreatobiliary Diseases: Current Modalities and Clinical Perspectives.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Endoscopic diagnosis of immunoglobulin G4-related sclerosing cholangitis.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2025Review
- Tissue processing of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration specimens from solid pancreatic lesions.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2024Review
- A multidisciplinary approach is essential for differentiating autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic adenocarcinoma.Clinical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Is Surgery in Autoimmune Pancreatitis Always a Failure?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- Autoimmune Pancreatitis and Immunoglobulin G4-related Sclerosing Cholangitis: Past, Present, and Future.The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A biopsy-based diagnosis of type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is now feasible via an endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy, but there are potential issues to address. The benefits of acquiring large tissue samples include more successful immunostaining for Immunoglobulin G4 and more identifications of storiform fibrosis, obliterative phlebitis, and the ductal lesions of type 1 AIP. However, storiform fibrosis may not be present in all the type 1 AIP lesions. An interobserver agreement study revealed only slight-to-moderate agreement among pathologists diagnosing the histological findings of type 1 AIP. Potential reasons for disagreement are the different time phases of the inflammation (which result in heterogeneous histological pictures), a focal appearance of the typical histological findings, and the different definitions used by pathologists. We have thus devised guidance for diagnosing type 1 AIP based on biopsy tissues. In this guidance, we define each histological finding of type 1 AIP, for example, storiform fibrosis as a swirling arrangement of inflammatory cells, spindle-shaped cells, and delicate collagens as a unit. The necessity of elastic stains for identifying obliterative phlebitis is explained, with examples of mimickers. Another important purpose of a biopsy in type 1 AIP cases is differentiation from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). In this situation, acinar-ductal metaplasia observed in type 1 AIP is a mimicker of PDAC and should not be confused. For the resolution of potential disagreements among pathologists, a multi-disciplinary approach with the collaboration of clinicians, radiologists, and pathologists is necessary to avoid confusion.
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.