Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35530935›Full record

ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022

Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.

Hui Sun, Sha Jian, Bo Peng, Jian Hou

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Current Progress in the CT- and MRI-Based Detection and Evaluation of Acute Pancreatitis Complications.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. MRI and CT radiomics for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis.European journal of radiology open · 2025
    Article
  7. Turkish Society of Gastroenterology: Pancreas Working Group, Acute Pancreatitis Committee Consensus Report.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2024
    Review
  8. Review
  9. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hui Sun *Clinical Medicine, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Shierqiao Campus, Chengdu, China.
Sha Jian *Department of Radiology, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Bo PengDepartment of Radiology, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Jian HouDepartment of Radiology, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Acute pancreatitis (AP) is characterized by acute onset, rapid development, and poor prognosis. Timely diagnosis and identification of the cause are the key to formulating the clinical program and improving the prognosis. There were several studies on this topic but the results varied. This study systematically evaluated and analyzed reports on the comparison of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of AP in recent years, providing evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment. Methods: The databases of PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang Data were searched for literature on MRI and CT in the diagnosis of AP. After evaluating the articles and extracting the data, the software RevMan 5.4 and Stata 16.0 were used for meta-analysis. Results: A total of 9 articles were included in the selection, with a total of 566 patients having undergone diagnosis. Meta-analysis showed that for MRI, the diagnostic sensitivity was 92%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 85% to 96%; specificity was 74%, 95% CI: 50% to 89%; positive likelihood ratio was 3.5, 95% CI: 1.6 to 8.0; negative likelihood ratio was 0.11, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.24; diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 32, 95% CI: 7 to 136; and the area under the curve (AUC) value was 0.93, 95% CI: 0.90 to 0.95. For CT, the diagnostic sensitivity was 73%, 95% CI: 55% to 85%; specificity was 64%, 95% CI: 42% to 82%; positive likelihood ratio was 2.0, 95% CI: 1.1 to 3.6; negative likelihood ratio was 0.43, 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.76; DOR was 5, 95% CI: 2 to 14; and the AUC value was 0.74, 95% CI: 0.70 to 0.78. The AUC value of MRI was significantly greater than CT (Z=3.684, P=0.023). Discussion: In the diagnosis of AP, MRI is more sensitive, specific, and accurate than CT, and can be used as the first choice for the diagnosis of AP.

Indexed as

acute pancreatitis (AP)computed tomography (CT)Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID35530935
PMCPMC9073804
OpenAlexW4229445282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.