SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2026
Comparing Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) vs. Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in the Etiological Evaluation of Idiopathic Acute Pancreatitis (IAP): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolving Etiologic Assessment in Acute Pancreatitis: The Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Validation of the ASALT Score for Predicting Biliary Etiology in Acute Pancreatitis: a Single-Center Study of 441 Patients.Maedica · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIdiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) accounts for up to 20% of acute pancreatitis cases despite thorough initial evaluation. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) are commonly used as second-line imaging modalities when IAP etiologies are unclear, yet their comparative diagnostic performance remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic yield of EUS versus MRCP in identifying etiologies of IAP.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar (January 2000-April 2025) identified English-language studies comparing EUS and MRCP diagnostic performance in IAP. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled relative risks (RR) were calculated using a random-effects model, with subgroup, sensitivity, and publication bias analyses done per PRISMA 2020. Subgroup analyses assessed diagnostic yield by etiology-biliary disease (cholelithiasis, choledocholithiasis, microlithiasis, and sludge), pancreatic divisum, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN), and malignancy (pancreatic adenocarcinoma and periampullary cancer).
resultsOf 4,933 studies screened, 8 met inclusion criteria. Pooled analysis showed that EUS had significantly higher diagnostic yield than MRCP (RR 2.01; 95% CI 1.42-2.85; p < 0.01; I
conclusionEUS surpasses MRCP in diagnosing IAP biliary etiologies and has an overall higher diagnostic yield. Prior studies suggest that EUS may be oversensitive in diagnosing CP, which may be consistent with the increased rate of diagnosis by EUS in our data. There was some signal that EUS had a higher diagnostic yield for cancer, which may highlight a potential role in identifying occult malignancy in IAP evaluation. In practice, choosing EUS vs. MRCP depends on resource availability, but a patient-centered approach that integrates modality strengths with clinical profiles can improve diagnostic accuracy and prognostic outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41015654What 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.