ReviewCureus2025
Evaluating the Role of Urinary Amylase in Diagnosing Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
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
Acute pancreatitis is a life-threatening and increasingly common condition. Although serum amylase and lipase are established diagnostic markers, the clinical relevance of urinary amylase is still uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of urinary amylase in adults with suspected acute pancreatitis. We registered our review with PROSPERO (CRD42024528325) and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid Medline, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for studies of adult patients with acute abdominal pain who had quantitative urinary amylase measurements performed. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion and extracted data from eligible studies. The risk of bias and applicability of the included studies were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Our search identified 178 studies, of which eight met the inclusion criteria; three cross-sectional studies and two case-control studies were included in the meta-analysis. Urinary amylase had a sensitivity of 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65-0.89) and specificity of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.76-0.93) at a model-derived optimal threshold of 1,373 IU/L. Our results indicate that urinary amylase does not appear to outperform serum amylase, and its suggested utility in delayed or atypical presentations of acute pancreatitis remains unsubstantiated.
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.