ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Exploring the Optimal Timing of Endoscopic Ultrasound Performance Post-Acute Idiopathic Pancreatitis.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- AEG-AESPANC-OPGE-SIED-SPG Ibero-Latin American Guidelines on Acute Pancreatitis (iLATAM-AP).United European gastroenterology journal · 2026Guideline
- Idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP)-a review of the literature and algorithm proposed for the diagnostic work-up of IAP.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2024Review
- Endoscopic Ultrasound to Identify the Actual Cause of Idiopathic Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with acute idiopathic pancreatitis (AIP) should undergo further imaging tests such as endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for further investigation. The time interval between an episode of AIP and EUS performance is still controversial.
aimsWe aimed to explore the optimal timing for performing EUS and to reveal parameters that might predict longer intervals needed for performing EUS.
methodsWe performed a single-center retrospective study at Galilee Medical Center from January 2015 to January 2020, at which point we included all patients who underwent EUS for further investigation of AIP.
resultsOverall, we included 50 patients. The average age of all patients was 54.2 ± 17.6 years (range 22-69 years), and more than half of the study cohort were males (58%). Classifying patients as inflamed vs. normal pancreatic tissue on EUS, we found that among patients with normal pancreatic tissue, EUS was performed 44.7 ± 28.3 days from discharge, while for patients with inflamed pancreatic tissue, it was 48.1 ± 22.3 days (
conclusionRadiological severity score was the only important factor in determining the time interval of performing EUS after an episode of AIP. Intervals greater than six weeks seem to be needed among patients with higher Balthazar scores.
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.