ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2021
Evaluation of clinical factors and three scoring systems for predicting mortality in perforated peptic ulcer patients, a retrospective study.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes and Predictors of Mortality in Perforated Versus Non-Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease: A U.S. Nationwide Propensity-Matched Analysis, 2016-2021.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Emergency laparotomy preoperative risk assessment tool performance: A systematic review.Surgery in practice and science · 2024Review
- Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) treatment: an Italian nationwide propensity score-matched cohort study investigating laparoscopic vs open approach.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveEarly identification of mortality risk in perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) patients is important for triage and risk stratification. This study aimed to compare clinical and laboratory factors and three scoring systems to predict mortality in PPU patients.
methodsRetrospective data on PPU patients at M. Djamil Hospital who underwent emergency laparotomy repair surgery were collected from December 2018 to May 2021. The data included demographics, clinical characteristics, and three scoring systems. Data analysis used bivariate, multivariate, and ROC analysis.
resultsA total 72 patients were included and mortality rate was 52.8%. Bivariate analysis showed a significant association between age (p = 0.029), onset of illness (p = 0.001), alteration of consciousness (p = <0.001), respiratory rate (p = 0.04), duration of surgery (p = 0.040), preoperative shock (p = 0.049), preoperative creatinine (p = <0.001), Boey's scores (p = 0.002), ASA (p = 0.001), and qSOFA scores (p = <0.001) with mortality in PPU patients. From multivariate analysis, the strongest clinical factors associated with mortality were alteration of consciousness (p = <0.001) and preoperative creatinine (p = 0.001). Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis showed the area under the curve (AUC) of Boey's Score 0.73, ASA classification 0.69, qSOFA score 0.77, alteration of consciousness 0.74, and preoperative creatinine 0.78.
conclusionPreoperative creatinine and altered consciousness had the strongest association with mortality in PPU patients. The qSOFA score predicted mortality better than Boey's score and ASA classification. Preoperative creatinine was the best single predictor of mortality.
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.