Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23680979›Full record

ReviewLangenbeck's archives of surgery2013

Scoring of human acute pancreatitis: state of the art.

Guido Alsfasser, Bettina M Rau, Ernst Klar

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Guido AlsfasserDept of General, Thoracic, Vascular and Transplantation Surgery, University of Rostock, Schillingallee 35, 18057 Rostock, Germany. guido.alsfasser@med.uni-rostock.de
Bettina M Rau
Ernst Klar

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Severity of Illness IndexAPACHEBiomarkersCalcitoninCalcitonin Gene-Related PeptideC-Reactive ProteinDisease ProgressionFemaleHematocritHumansMaleMonitoring, PhysiologicOrgan Dysfunction ScoresPancreatitis, Acute NecrotizingPrognosisProtein PrecursorsBiomarkersCALCA protein, humanCalcitoninCalcitonin Gene-Related PeptideC-Reactive ProteinProtein Precursors

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.