Maaret Eskelinen1, Jannica Meklin2, Tuomas Selander3, Kari Syrjånen4,5, Matti Eskelinen2. 1. Department of Surgery, Kuopio University Hospital and University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland; matti.eskelinen@kuh.fi. 2. Department of Surgery, Kuopio University Hospital and University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland. 3. Department of Science Service Center, Kuopio University Hospital and University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland. 4. Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil. 5. SMW Consultants, Ltd., Kaarina, Finland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: The diagnostic accuracy (DA) for patients with acute pancreatitis (AcPa) has been rarely evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the AcPa study group, there were 22 patients versus 1,311 patients in the non-AcPa group. The clinical history-taking variables (CHT) (n=22), clinical signs & tests details (CST) (n=14), and laboratory analyses (n=3) were recorded in each patient. Meta-analytical techniques were used to detect the summary sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) estimates for each data set; CHT, CST, and diagnostic scores (DS). RESULTS: In receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the area under curve (AUC) values for i) CHT, ii) CST, and iii) DS were as follows: i) AUC=0.640 (95%CI=0.550-0.730); ii) AUC=0.588 (95%CI=0.520-0.656), and iii) AUC=0.943 (95%CI=0.910-0.976). The differences between these AUC values (roccomp analysis) are as follows: i) versus ii) p=0.155; i) versus iii) p<0.0001; ii) versus iii) p<0.0001. CONCLUSION: The new DS introduced in this study proved to be far superior to both symptoms and signs & tests in its DA for AcPa, as demonstrated by HSROC analysis.
BACKGROUND/AIM: The diagnostic accuracy (DA) for patients with acute pancreatitis (AcPa) has been rarely evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the AcPa study group, there were 22 patients versus 1,311 patients in the non-AcPa group. The clinical history-taking variables (CHT) (n=22), clinical signs & tests details (CST) (n=14), and laboratory analyses (n=3) were recorded in each patient. Meta-analytical techniques were used to detect the summary sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) estimates for each data set; CHT, CST, and diagnostic scores (DS). RESULTS: In receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the area under curve (AUC) values for i) CHT, ii) CST, and iii) DS were as follows: i) AUC=0.640 (95%CI=0.550-0.730); ii) AUC=0.588 (95%CI=0.520-0.656), and iii) AUC=0.943 (95%CI=0.910-0.976). The differences between these AUC values (roccomp analysis) are as follows: i) versus ii) p=0.155; i) versus iii) p<0.0001; ii) versus iii) p<0.0001. CONCLUSION: The new DS introduced in this study proved to be far superior to both symptoms and signs & tests in its DA for AcPa, as demonstrated by HSROC analysis.
Authors: Georgios I Papachristou; Venkata Muddana; Dhiraj Yadav; Michael O'Connell; Michael K Sanders; Adam Slivka; David C Whitcomb Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2009-10-27 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Lotte Boxhoorn; Rogier P Voermans; Stefan A Bouwense; Marco J Bruno; Robert C Verdonk; Marja A Boermeester; Hjalmar C van Santvoort; Marc G Besselink Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-09-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ari Leppäniemi; Matti Tolonen; Antonio Tarasconi; Helmut Segovia-Lohse; Emiliano Gamberini; Andrew W Kirkpatrick; Chad G Ball; Neil Parry; Massimo Sartelli; Daan Wolbrink; Harry van Goor; Gianluca Baiocchi; Luca Ansaloni; Walter Biffl; Federico Coccolini; Salomone Di Saverio; Yoram Kluger; Ernest Moore; Fausto Catena Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 5.469