ArticleAME case reports2025
Clinical-CT mismatch in acute pancreatitis: a new concept and report of two cases.
Article in AME case reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a condition with varying severity, ranging from mild to severe, each presenting different prognostic outcomes. Accurate and early assessment of AP severity is crucial for determining appropriate treatment and management. Traditionally, the severity of AP has been evaluated using clinical criteria or imaging, but discrepancies between these assessments can complicate clinical decision-making. Case Description: This case report presents two patients with AP, where a mismatch was observed between clinical and imaging severity assessments. In the first case, laboratory tests suggested mild AP, while computed tomography (CT) imaging indicated severe pathology. In contrast, the second case showed severe AP according to the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, but the CT imaging only revealed mild findings. This clinical-CT mismatch highlights the need for a comprehensive approach to evaluating AP severity, rather than relying on a single assessment method. Conclusions: The report introduces the concept of clinical-CT mismatch in the assessment of AP. It emphasizes the importance of integrating clinical scores, such as APACHE II, with imaging findings to provide a more accurate and reliable evaluation of severity. By doing so, clinicians can enhance decision-making and improve management strategies for AP.
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.