ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Discordance between CECT and angiographic findings in severe acute pancreatitis-related hemorrhage: implications for interventional management.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hemorrhagic complications in severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) carry high mortality and demand timely intervention. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) is routinely performed before digital subtraction angiography (DSA) to guide management decisions, yet its predictive accuracy for angiographic findings and interventional success remains poorly defined. Materials and methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 69 bleeding episodes in 56 SAP patients with clinical suspicion of active hemorrhage who underwent both CECT and subsequent DSA. Imaging findings were graded on a 3-point scale (Grade 0: negative; Grade 1: suspicious; Grade 2: definite bleeding). Intermodality concordance was evaluated using weighted kappa statistics, with DSA serving as the reference standard. Clinical outcomes including embolization success, rebleeding, and need for surgical rescue were recorded. Results: The intermodality agreement between CECT and DSA was fair (weighted κ = 0.29). Among 26 episodes with negative CECT findings (Grade 0), 69.2% (18/26) required and successfully underwent therapeutic embolization followed by clinical stabilization. Although CECT Grade 2 findings showed a high positive predictive value (94.1%), they were also associated with all instances of rebleeding and procedural abandonment. Nine episodes eventually required surgical rescue after DSA. Conclusion: In this selected high-risk cohort of SAP patients undergoing both CECT and DSA for clinically suspected hemorrhagic complications, CECT demonstrated only limited concordance with angiographic findings. Negative or non-definitive CT findings should be interpreted cautiously when clinical suspicion for ongoing hemorrhage persists, and angiographic evaluation should be considered as part of an integrated, clinically driven diagnostic and therapeutic pathway in this high-risk population.
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.