ReviewCureus2025
Diagnostic Utility of Urinary Amylase in Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
backgroundDiagnosis of acute pancreatitis (AP) is primarily based on serum amylase and lipase levels, which may normalize rapidly or remain within normal limits in early or late stages. Urinary amylase, with a longer detection window and easier sample collection, may offer a more sensitive diagnostic option, though evidence remains inconsistent.
objectiveThis study aimed to systematically review published studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of urinary amylase in AP.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for studies published from January 2010 to May 2025. Eligible studies included observational, prospective, or diagnostic accuracy designs assessing urinary amylase in clinically suspected or confirmed AP. Data on sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and area under the curve (AUC) were extracted. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.
resultsThirteen studies (sample sizes 51-458) met the inclusion criteria, evaluating urinary amylase and urinary trypsinogen-2 in AP. Reported sensitivities ranged from 62.9% to 100% and specificities from 42.9% to 100%. Comparative analyses demonstrated that urinary biomarkers often performed as well as or better than serum amylase and lipase, with AUC values reaching up to 1.0. Several studies highlighted the high negative predictive value (up to 98.3%), suggesting strong utility for excluding AP. Urinary testing also provides practical advantages, including being non-invasive, rapid, and repeatable, which make it especially suitable for emergency and resource-limited settings.
conclusionUrinary amylase and urinary trypsinogen-2 are sensitive, reliable, and clinically useful biomarkers for diagnosing AP. Their diagnostic performance equals or surpasses conventional serum markers, supporting their integration into diagnostic pathways as first-line or adjunctive tests. Standardized protocols and multicenter validation studies are recommended to optimize their clinical application.
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.