Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26019457›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2015

Risk scoring system and predictor for clinically relevant pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Ji-Ye Chen, Jian Feng, Xian-Qiang Wang, Shou-Wang Cai, Jia-Hong Dong, Yong-Liang Chen

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05654636 (Evaluation of Sun's Scoring System Use in Post-pancraticodoudenectomy Pancreatic Fistula; an Observational Cohort Study.), which is not on this map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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.

NCT05654636 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Evaluation of Sun's Scoring System Use in Post-pancraticodoudenectomy Pancreatic Fistula; an Observational Cohort Study.

TypeobservationalSponsorAssiut UniversityRan2023 to 2025Enrolled40ConditionsRisk Scoring System for Prediction of Pancreatic Fistula Post PD
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Ji-Ye ChenJi-Ye Chen, Jian Feng, Xian-Qiang Wang, Shou-Wang Cai, Jia-Hong Dong, Yong-Liang Chen, Hospital and Institute of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Chinese PLA Postgraduate Medical School, Beijing 100853, China.
Jian FengJi-Ye Chen, Jian Feng, Xian-Qiang Wang, Shou-Wang Cai, Jia-Hong Dong, Yong-Liang Chen, Hospital and Institute of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Chinese PLA Postgraduate Medical School, Beijing 100853, China.
Xian-Qiang WangJi-Ye Chen, Jian Feng, Xian-Qiang Wang, Shou-Wang Cai, Jia-Hong Dong, Yong-Liang Chen, Hospital and Institute of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Chinese PLA Postgraduate Medical School, Beijing 100853, China.
Shou-Wang CaiJi-Ye Chen, Jian Feng, Xian-Qiang Wang, Shou-Wang Cai, Jia-Hong Dong, Yong-Liang Chen, Hospital and Institute of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Chinese PLA Postgraduate Medical School, Beijing 100853, China.
Jia-Hong DongJi-Ye Chen, Jian Feng, Xian-Qiang Wang, Shou-Wang Cai, Jia-Hong Dong, Yong-Liang Chen, Hospital and Institute of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Chinese PLA Postgraduate Medical School, Beijing 100853, China.
Yong-Liang ChenJi-Ye Chen, Jian Feng, Xian-Qiang Wang, Shou-Wang Cai, Jia-Hong Dong, Yong-Liang Chen, Hospital and Institute of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Chinese PLA Postgraduate Medical School, Beijing 100853, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo establish a scoring system to predict clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).

methodsThe clinical records of 921 consecutive patients who underwent PD between 2008 and 2013 were reviewed retrospectively. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was defined and classified by the international study group of pancreatic fistula (ISGPF). We used a logistic regression model to determine the independent risk factors of CR-POPF and developed a scoring system based on the regression coefficient of the logistic regression model. The optimal cut-off value to divide the risk strata was determined by the Youden index. The patients were divided into two groups (low risk and high risk). The independent sample t test was used to detect differences in the means of drain amylase on postoperative day (POD) 1, 2 and 3. The optimal cut-off level of the drain amylase to distinguish CR-POPF from non-clinical POPF in the two risk strata groups was determined using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

resultsGrade A POPF occurred in 106 (11.5%) patients, grade B occurred in 57 (6.2%) patients, and grade C occurred in 32 (3.5%) patients. A predictive scoring system for CR-POPF (0-6 points) was constructed using the following four factors: 1 point for each body mass index ≥ 28 [odds ratio (OR) = 3.86; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.92-7.75, P = 0.00], soft gland texture (OR = 4.50; 95%CI, 2.53-7.98, P = 0.00), and the difference between the blood loss and transfusion in operation ≥ 800 mL (OR = 3.45; 95%CI, 1.92-7.75, P = 0.00); and from 0 points for a 5 mm or greater duct diameter to 3 points for a less than 2 mm duct (OR = 8.97; 95%CI: 3.70-21.77, P = 0.00). The ROC curve showed that the area under the curve of this score was 0.812. A score of 3 points was suggested to be the best cut-off value (Youden index = 0.485). In the low risk group, a drain amylase level ≥ 3600 U/L on POD3 could distinguish CR-POPF from non-clinical POPF (the sensitivity and specificity were 75% and 85%, respectively). In the high risk group, the best cut-off was a drain amylase level of 1600 (the sensitivity and specificity were 77 and 63%, respectively).

conclusionA 6-point scoring system accurately predicted the occurrence of CR-POPF. In addition, a drain amylase level on POD3 might be a predictor of this complication.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overArea Under CurveChildChi-Square DistributionDrainageFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMedical RecordsMiddle AgedOdds RatioLogistic modelPancreatic fistulaPancreaticoduodenectomyPostoperative complicationRisk factor

Identifiers

PMID26019457
PMCPMC4438027

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.