Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35902850›Full record

ArticleBMC surgery2022

Comparison of the PIPAS severity score tool and the QSOFA criteria for predicting in-hospital mortality of peritonitis in a tertiary hospital in Uganda: a prospective cohort study.

Richard Newton Iranya, Ronald Mbiine, Andrew Weil Semulimi, Joan Nasige, Timothy Makumbi, Moses Galukande

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Richard Newton IranyaDepartment of Surgery, School of Medicine, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. r.iranya9@gmail.com.
Ronald MbiineDepartment of Surgery, School of Medicine, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Andrew Weil SemulimiDepartment of Physiology, School of Biomedical Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Joan NasigeDepartment of Surgery, School of Medicine, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Timothy MakumbiDepartment of Surgery, School of Medicine, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Moses GalukandeDepartment of Surgery, School of Medicine, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe majority of the prognostic scoring tools for peritonitis are impractical in low resource settings because they are complex while others are quite costly. The quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score and the Physiologic Indicators for Prognosis in Abdominal Sepsis (PIPAS) severity score are two strictly bedside prognostic tools but their predictive ability for mortality of peritonitis is yet to be compared. We compared the predictive ability of the qSOFA criteria and the PIPAS severity score for in-hospital mortality of peritonitis.

methodThis was a prospective cohort study on consecutive peritonitis cases managed surgically in a tertiary hospital in Uganda between October 2020 to June 2021. PIPAS severity score and qSOFA score were assessed preoperatively for each case and all cases were then followed up intra- and postoperatively until discharge from the hospital, or up to 30 days if the in-hospital stay was prolonged; the outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. We used Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analysis to assess and compare the predictive abilities of these two tools for peritonitis in-hospital mortality. All tests were 2 sided (p < 0.05) with 95% confidence intervals.

resultsWe evaluated 136 peritonitis cases. Their mean age was 34.4 years (standard deviation = 14.5). The male to female ratio was 3:1. The overall in-hospital mortality rate for peritonitis was 12.5%. The PIPAS severity score had a significantly better discriminative ability (AUC = 0.893, 95% CI 0.801-0.986) than the qSOFA score (AUC = 0.770, 95% CI 0.620-0.920) for peritonitis mortality (p = 0.0443). The best PIPAS severity cut-off score (a score of > = 2) had sensitivity and specificity of 76.5%, and 93.3% respectively, while the corresponding values for the qSOFA criteria (score > = 2), were 58.8% and 98.3% respectively.

conclusionsThe in-hospital mortality in this cohort of peritonitis cases was high. The PIPAS severity score tool has a superior predictive ability and higher sensitivity for peritonitis in-hospital mortality than the qSOFA score tool although the latter tool is more specific. We recommend the use of the PIPAS severity score as the initial prognostic tool for peritonitis cases in the emergency department.

Indexed as

PeritonitisSepsisAdultCohort StudiesEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHospital MortalityHumansMaleOrgan Dysfunction ScoresPrognosisProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesROC CurveTertiary Care CentersUgandaMortalityPeritonitisPIPASqSOFA

Identifiers

PMID35902850
PMCPMC9331107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.