sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography versus endoscopic ultrasonography against endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in diagnosing choledocholithiasis: the indonesian experience
Clicks: 281
ID: 209206
2017
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Popular Article
30.0
/100
281 views
28 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
PopularRanked #14 of 131 articles by views in annals of intensive care
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 131 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Background/Aims Biliary stone disease is one of the most common conditions leading to hospitalization. In addition to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) are required in diagnosing choledocholithiasis. This study aimed to compare the sensitivity and specificity of EUS and MRCP against ERCP in diagnosing choledocholithiasis. Methods This retrospective study was conducted after prospective collection of data involving 62 suspected choledocholithiasis patients who underwent ERCP from June 2013 to August 2014. Patients were divided into two groups. The first group (31 patients) underwent EUS and the second group (31 patients) underwent MRCP. Then, ERCP was performed in both groups. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of EUS and MRCP were determined by comparing them to ERCP, which is the gold standard. Results The male to female ratio was 3:2. The mean ages were 47.25 years in the first group and 52.9 years in the second group. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for EUS were 96%, 57%, 87%, 88%, and 80% respectively, and for MRCP were 81%, 40%, 68%, 74%, and 50%, respectively. Conclusions EUS is a better diagnostic tool than MRCP for diagnosing choledocholithiasis.
| Reference Key |
makmun2017clinicalsensitivity
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Dadang Makmun;Achmad Fauzi;Hamzah Shatri |
| Journal | annals of intensive care |
| Year | 2017 |
| DOI |
10.5946/ce.2016.159
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.