Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10980940›Full record

ReviewCurrent gastroenterology reports1999

Severity scoring for acute pancreatitis: where do we stand in 1999?

L K Gates

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current gastroenterology reports, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

L K GatesUniversity of Kentucky Medical Center, Internal Medicine/Digestive Diseases, Lexington, KY 40536-0084, USA.

Funding

XENOBIOTIC TRANSFER INTO MILK NITROFURANTOINM01RR002602 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI MOSER, DEBRA KAY · 1985 to 2007
$12.1M
NCRR NIH HHS 3-M01-RR02602-12S1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The last few years have seen a rapid evolution in the care of acute pancreatitis. Interventions such as endoscopic sphincterotomy with stone extraction and administration of platelet activating factor are effective but must be applied early. Ranson criteria and modified Glasgow score are widely used, but these systems often cannot separate mild versus severe pancreatitits within 24 hours of hospital admission. The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) is a good predictive system for severity of disease at admission. New single agent biologic markers hold some promise. The CT severity index is better than APACHE II for predicting local complications but not as good for predicting mortality and systemic morbidity. Modern care of acute pancreatitis requires the development of a rapid response team model, with early assessment by APACHE II, biologic markers, and, if indicated, the CT Severity Index.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseAPACHEHumansPancreatitisPrognosisSeverity of Illness IndexTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.