ReviewLangenbeck's archives of surgery2013
Scoring of human acute pancreatitis: state of the art.
Review in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictive value of renal resistive index and urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin for acute pancreatitis-associated renal injury and renal replacement therapy efficacy.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Acute pancreatitis: A review of diagnosis, severity prediction and prognosis assessment from imaging technology, scoring system and artificial intelligence.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Analysis of Volatile Anesthetic-Induced Organ Protection in Simultaneous Pancreas-Kidney Transplantation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Correlation of Different Serum Biomarkers with Prediction of Early Pancreatic Graft Dysfunction Following Simultaneous Pancreas and Kidney Transplantation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Observational
- Surgical and interventional management of complications caused by acute pancreatitis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute pancreatitis remains as one of the most difficult and challenging digestive disorder to predict in terms of clinical course and outcome. Every case has an individual course and therefore acute pancreatitis remains challenging and fascinating. Due to this variability, many different scoring systems have evolved during the last decades. Every scoring system has advantages and disadvantages. Not every scoring system is capable of assessing the clinical time course of the disease, some are only suitable for the time of initial presentation.
aimThis paper will give an overview on the development of different widely used scoring systems and their performance in assessing severity and prognosis of acute pancreatitis.
conclusionSeverity assessment means objective quantification of overall severity of illness. Early and reliable stratification of severity is required to decide best treatment of the individual patient, preparation for possible evolving complications or for referral to specialist centers. No single scoring system is able to cover the entire range of problems associated with treatment and assessment of acute pancreatitis. In our clinical experience, we recommend hematocrit upon admission, daily sequential organ failure assessment score and procalcitonin, C-reactive protein on day 3 and CT severity index beyond the first week. These scoring tools together with close clinical follow-up of the patient ultimately lead to an optimized treatment of this challenging disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23680979What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.