TY - JOUR
T1 - Diagnosing Chronic Pancreatitis Comparison and Evaluation of Different Diagnostic Tools
AU - Issa, Yama
AU - van Santvoort, Hjalmar C.
AU - van Dieren, Susan
AU - Besselink, Marc G.
AU - Boermeester, Marja A.
AU - Ahmed Ali, Usama
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - Objectives: This study aims to compare theM-ANNHEIM, Buchler, and Luneburg diagnostic tools for chronic pancreatitis (CP). Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of the development of CP was performed in a prospectively collected multicenter cohort including 669 patients after a first episode of acute pancreatitis. We compared the individual components of the M-ANNHEIM, Buchler, and Luneburg tools, the agreement between tools, and estimated diagnostic accuracy using Bayesian latent-class analysis. Results: A total of 669 patients with acute pancreatitis followed-up for a median period of 57 (interquartile range, 42-70) months were included. Chronic pancreatitis was diagnosed in 50 patients (7%), 59 patients (9%), and 61 patients (9%) by the M-ANNHEIM, Luneburg, and Buchler tools, respectively. The overall agreement between these tools was substantial (kappa = 0.75). Differences between the tools regarding the following criteria led to significant changes in the total number of diagnoses of CP: abdominal pain, recurrent pancreatitis, moderate to marked ductal lesions, endocrine and exocrine insufficiency, pancreatic calcifications, and pancreatic pseudocysts. The Buchler tool had the highest sensitivity (94%), followed by the M-ANNHEIM (87%), and finally the Luneburg tool (81%). Conclusions: Differences between diagnostic tools for CP are mainly attributed to presence of clinical symptoms, endocrine insufficiency, and certain morphological complications
AB - Objectives: This study aims to compare theM-ANNHEIM, Buchler, and Luneburg diagnostic tools for chronic pancreatitis (CP). Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of the development of CP was performed in a prospectively collected multicenter cohort including 669 patients after a first episode of acute pancreatitis. We compared the individual components of the M-ANNHEIM, Buchler, and Luneburg tools, the agreement between tools, and estimated diagnostic accuracy using Bayesian latent-class analysis. Results: A total of 669 patients with acute pancreatitis followed-up for a median period of 57 (interquartile range, 42-70) months were included. Chronic pancreatitis was diagnosed in 50 patients (7%), 59 patients (9%), and 61 patients (9%) by the M-ANNHEIM, Luneburg, and Buchler tools, respectively. The overall agreement between these tools was substantial (kappa = 0.75). Differences between the tools regarding the following criteria led to significant changes in the total number of diagnoses of CP: abdominal pain, recurrent pancreatitis, moderate to marked ductal lesions, endocrine and exocrine insufficiency, pancreatic calcifications, and pancreatic pseudocysts. The Buchler tool had the highest sensitivity (94%), followed by the M-ANNHEIM (87%), and finally the Luneburg tool (81%). Conclusions: Differences between diagnostic tools for CP are mainly attributed to presence of clinical symptoms, endocrine insufficiency, and certain morphological complications
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1097/MPA.0000000000000903
DO - https://doi.org/10.1097/MPA.0000000000000903
M3 - Article
C2 - 28902786
SN - 0885-3177
VL - 46
SP - 1158
EP - 1164
JO - Pancreas
JF - Pancreas
IS - 9
ER -