The ability of emergency physicians to diagnose and score acute pancreatitis on computed tomography
- 171 Downloads
The aim of this study is to determine the ability of emergency physicians’ (EP) interpreting contrast-enhanced computed tomographies (CECTs) performed in patients diagnosed or suspected acute pancreatitis (AP), using the modified computed tomography severity index (MCTSI) scoring system.
This study was conducted in Training and Research Hospital’s Emergency Department. From January 1, 2013 to April 30, 2016, patients whom performed CECT within 24 h of admission with diagnosis or suspicion of AP were reviewed retrospectively. One hundred eighteen patients were included in the study. Three-third-year EPs received education about CECT interpretation and MCTSI criteria. Each EP interpreted CECTs in a blinded manner. The EPs’ performance of determining the CECTs with or without AP and scoring the CECTs with CTSI scoring system was investigated.
The agreement (weighted kappa) between the EPs and the radiologists for determining CECTs positive for AP was 0.932 (p < 0.001), 0.864 (p < 0.001) and 0.949 (p < 0.001) for EP1, EP2 and EP3, respectively. The agreement for MCTSI scores was 0.649 (p < 0.001), 0.588 (p < 0.001) and 0.734 (p < 0.001). These values showed a significant relationship between the EPs and radiologists.
EPs can diagnose the AP on CECTs and score CECTs with MCTSI scoring system correctly.
KeywordsAcute pancreatitis Contrast-enhanced computed tomography Emergency physician Modified CT severity index
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Arif Karagöz, Erden Erol Ünlüer, Orhan Oyar, Fatih Esad Topal, and Firdevs Topal declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All of the authors declare that the manuscript, as submitted or its essence in another version, is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, and will not be published elsewhere while under consideration by European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery. All authors have made substantive contributions to the study, and all authors endorse the data and conclusions. A single study is not split up into several parts to increase the quantity of submissions and submitted to various journals or to one journal over time. No data have been fabricated or manipulated (including images) to support our conclusions. No data, text, or theories by others are presented as if they were the authors’ own.
All authors have read and approved the paper, have met the criteria for authorship as established by the International Committee of Medical Journals Editors, believe that the paper represents honest work, and are able to verify the validity of the results reported. Authors whose names appear on the submission have contributed sufficiently to the scientific work, and therefore share collective responsibility and accountability for the results. The undersigned authors transfer all copyright ownership of the manuscript to the journal in the event the work is published. The undersigned authors warrant that the article is original, does not infringe upon any copyright or other proprietary right of any third party and has not been previously published.
- 6.Sharma V, Rana SS, Sharma RK, Kang M, Gupta R, Bhasin DK. A study of radiological scoring system evaluating extrapancreatic inflammation with conventional radiological and clinical scores in predicting outcomes in acute pancreatitis. Ann Gastroenterol. 2015;28:399–404.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 15.Singh VK, Wu BU, Bollen TL, Repas K, Maurer R, Johannes RS, et al. A prospective evaluation of the bedside index for severity in acute pancreatitis score in assessing mortality and intermediate markers of severity in acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(4):966–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.Gülen B, Sonmez E, Yaylaci S, Serinken M, Eken C, Dur A, et al. Effect of harmless acute pancreatitis score, red cell distribution width and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio on the mortality of patients with nontraumatic acute pancreatitis at the emergency department. World J Emerg Med. 2015;6:29–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar