ArticleLipids in health and disease2021
Accuracy of conventional and novel scoring systems in predicting severity and outcomes of acute pancreatitis: a retrospective study.
Article in Lipids in health and disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Clinical usefulness of scoring systems to predict severe acute pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis with pre and post-test probability assessment.United European gastroenterology journal · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- Acute pancreatitis: mechanisms and therapeutic approaches.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026Review
- Federated learning for early severity prediction in acute pancreatitis: a multi-center study.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Clinical value of BISAP score combined with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and ascites in early prediction of hypertriglyceridemic severe acute pancreatitis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- A Comprehensive Review of Predictive Precision in Scar Medicine: From Molecular Predictors to Machine Learning Models.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2025Review
- Clinical significance of peripheral blood DDR1 and CtBP gene methylation detection in patients with acute pancreatitis.Epigenetics · 2024Article
- Establishment and validation of early prediction model for hypertriglyceridemic severe acute pancreatitis.Lipids in health and disease · 2023Article
- Automated Machine Learning for the Early Prediction of the Severity of Acute Pancreatitis in Hospitals.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Article
- Comparing prognostic scoring systems in acute pancreatitis: Bedside Index of Severity in Acute Pancreatitis, WL, and Chinese Simple Scoring System Scores.Turkish journal of emergency medicineArticle
- Value of serum CRP and IL-6 Assays combined with Pancreatitis activity scoring system for assessing the severity of patients with acute pancreatitis.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
- Exploring the value of early laboratory indicators combined with pancreatitis activity scoring system in assessing the severity and prognosis of acute pancreatitis.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecently, several novel scoring systems have been developed to evaluate the severity and outcomes of acute pancreatitis. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of novel and conventional scoring systems in predicting the severity and outcomes of acute pancreatitis.
methodsPatients treated between January 2003 and August 2020 were reviewed. The Ranson score (RS), Glasgow score (GS), bedside index of severity in acute pancreatitis (BISAP), pancreatic activity scoring system (PASS), and Chinese simple scoring system (CSSS) were determined within 48 h after admission. Multivariate logistic regression was used for severity, mortality, and organ failure prediction. Optimum cutoffs were identified using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.
resultsA total of 1848 patients were included. The areas under the curve (AUCs) of RS, GS, BISAP, PASS, and CSSS for severity prediction were 0.861, 0.865, 0.829, 0.778, and 0.816, respectively. The corresponding AUCs for mortality prediction were 0.693, 0.736, 0.789, 0.858, and 0.759. The corresponding AUCs for acute respiratory distress syndrome prediction were 0.745, 0.784, 0.834, 0.936, and 0.820. Finally, the corresponding AUCs for acute renal failure prediction were 0.707, 0.734, 0.781, 0.868, and 0.816.
conclusionsRS and GS predicted severity better than they predicted mortality and organ failure, while PASS predicted mortality and organ failure better. BISAP and CSSS performed equally well in severity and outcome predictions.
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.