November 12, 2014
Notes: Jiang, Li-Ya
Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi. 2013 Jul;33(7):958-62.
Author Address: Department of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Wuxi No 2 People’s Hospital, Jiangsu 214002, China.
Reference Type: Journal Article
Record Number: 5036Author: Jin, T., Huang, W., Jiang, K., Xiong, J. J., Xue, P., Javed, M. A., Yang, X. N. and Xia, Q.
Title: Urinary trypsinogen-2 for diagnosing acute pancreatitis: a meta-analysis
Journal: Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int
Short Title: Urinary trypsinogen-2 for diagnosing acute pancreatitis: a meta-analysis
Alternate Journal: Hepatobiliary & pancreatic diseases international : HBPD INT
ISSN: 1499-3872 (Print)
Accession Number: 23924492
Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde/adverse effects
Sensitivity and Specificity
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Currently, serum amylase and lipase are the most popular laboratory markers for early diagnosis of acute pancreatitis with reasonable sensitivity and specificity. Urinary trypsinogen-2 (UT-2) has been increasingly used but its clinical value for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis and post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis has not yet been systematically assessed. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search was carried out using PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and Web of Science for clinical trials, which studied the usefulness of UT-2 as a diagnostic marker for acute pancreatitis. Sensitivity, specificity and the diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for each study and were compared with serum amylase and lipase. Summary receiver-operating curves were conducted and the area under the curve (AUC) was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of UT-2 for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis were 80% and 92%, respectively (AUC=0.96, DOR=65.63, 95% CI: 31.65-139.09). The diagnostic value of UT-2 was comparable to serum amylase but was weaker than serum lipase. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of post-ERCP pancreatitis were 86% and 94%, respectively (AUC=0.92, DOR=77.68, 95% CI: 24.99-241.48). CONCLUSIONS: UT-2 as a rapid test could be potentially used for the diagnosis of post-ERCP pancreatitis and to an extent, acute pancreatitis. Further studies are warranted to confirm these results.