Skip to main content
. 2017 Apr 21;2017(4):CD012010. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012010.pub2

Aysan 2008.

Study characteristics
Patient sampling Type of study: prospective study.
 Consecutive or random sample: unclear.
Patient characteristics and setting Sample size: 99.
 Females: 46 (46.5%).
 Median or median age: 37 years.
 Presentation:
 Patients with abdominal pain.
 Exclusion criteria:
 Patients with trauma or who required emergency surgical intervention.
 Setting: secondary care, Turkey.
Index tests Index test: urinary trypsinogen‐2.
 Further details:
 Technical specifications: Medix Biochemica.
 Performed by: not stated.
 Criteria for positive diagnosis: not clearly stated (probably used the manufacturer's level of > 50 ng/mL).
Target condition and reference standard(s) Target condition: acute pancreatitis.
Reference standard: CT scan.
Further details:
Technical specifications: not stated.
Performed by: radiologists.
Criteria for positive diagnosis: at least 1 of the following:
  • increase in diameter of pancreas;

  • irregular pancreas contours;

  • peripancreatic fluid;

  • peripancreatic gas accumulation.

Flow and timing Number of indeterminates for whom the results of reference standard were available: not stated.
 Number of patients who were excluded from the analysis: not stated.
Comparative  
Notes  
Methodological quality
Item Authors' judgement Risk of bias Applicability concerns
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? Unclear    
Was a case‐control design avoided? Yes    
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? Unclear    
    Unclear Unclear
DOMAIN 2: Index Test Urinary trypsinogen‐2 (standard criteria)
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? Unclear    
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? Yes    
    Unclear Unclear
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? No    
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? Unclear    
Is the reference standard independent of the index test? Yes    
    High Low
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? Unclear    
Did all patients receive the same reference standard? Yes    
Were all patients included in the analysis? Unclear    
Did all patients receive a reference standard? Yes    
    Unclear