Observational studyBMC emergency medicine2021
Derivation and validation of the ED-SAS score for very early prediction of mortality and morbidity with acute pancreatitis: a retrospective observational study.
Observational study in BMC emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Construction and validation of machine learning models for sepsis prediction in patients with acute pancreatitis.BMC surgery · 2023Trial
- Article
- Interpretable prediction of 30-day mortality in patients with acute pancreatitis based on machine learning and SHAP.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Effects of high-quality nursing on complications of peripherally inserted central catheter placement in patients with leukemia.American journal of translational research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExisting scoring systems to predict mortality in acute pancreatitis may not be directly applicable to the emergency department (ED). The objective of this study was to derive and validate the ED-SAS, a simple scoring score using variables readily available in the ED to predict mortality in patients with acute pancreatitis.
methodsThis retrospective observational study was performed based on patient data collected from electronic health records across 2 independent health systems; 1 was used for the derivation cohort and the other for the validation cohort. Adult patients who were eligible presented to the ED, required hospital admission, and had a confirmed diagnosis of acute pancreatitis. Patients with chronic or recurrent episodes of pancreatitis were excluded. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Analyses tested and derived candidate variables to establish a prediction score, which was subsequently applied to the validation cohort to assess odds ratios for the primary and secondary outcomes.
resultsThe derivation cohort included 599 patients, and the validation cohort 2011 patients. Thirty-day mortality was 4.2 and 3.9%, respectively. From the derivation cohort, 3 variables were established for use in the predictive scoring score: ≥2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, age > 60 years, and SpO2 < 96%. Summing the presence or absence of each variable yielded an ED-SAS score ranging from 0 to 3. In the validation cohort, the odds of 30-day mortality increased with each subsequent ED-SAS point: 4.4 (95% CI 1.8-10.8) for 1 point, 12.0 (95% CI 4.9-29.4) for 2 points, and 41.7 (95% CI 15.8-110.1) for 3 points (c-statistic = 0.77).
conclusionAn ED-SAS score that incorporates SpO2, age, and SIRS measurements, all of which are available in the ED, provides a rapid method for predicting 30-day mortality in acute pancreatitis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.