ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2025
Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging and multi-slice spiral computed tomography in the diagnosis of pancreatitis.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 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
Objective: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and multi-slice spiral computed tomography (MSCT) in patients with pancreatitis. Methodology: Clinical data of 128 patients with suspected pancreatitis who underwent MRI and MSCT examinations in Jiading District Central Hospital from November 2022 to September 2024 were retrospectively analyzed. Of them, 64 patients were eventually diagnosed with pancreatitis and 64 received a different diagnosis. Pancreatitis detection rate, diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of MRI and MSCT, as well as the performance of both methods in identifying focal or total pancreatic enlargement and peripancreatic exudate, were compared. Results: The sensitivity (96.88%), accuracy (96.09%) and NPV (96.83%) of MRI in diagnosing pancreatitis were significantly better than those of MSCT (84.38%, 89.06%, 85.71%, respectively, P<0.05). Both methods had comparable specificity (MRI: 95.31%, MSCT: 93.75%) and PPV (MRI: 95.38%, MSCT: 93.10%) (P>0.05). The detection rate of MRI in identifying pancreatic enlargement (96.00%) and peripancreatic exudate (94.23%) was superior to that of MSCT (82.00% and 76.92%, respectively, P<0.05). Conclusions: Both MRI and MSCT are high-value diagnostic tools for pancreatitis. However, MRI performs better in identifying pancreatic parenchymal changes and surrounding tissue involvement. Based on the results of this study, clinicians should prioritize MRI as an imaging evaluation method for pancreatitis when possible.
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.