SynthesisPloS one2024
Predictive value of the Ranson and BISAP scoring systems for the severity and prognosis of acute pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the depth of myometrial infiltration in early endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio for primary risk stratification in acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- The Global Immune-Nutrition-Inflammation Index (GINI) in Acute Pancreatitis Severity Assessment: A Comparative Study.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Clinical-radiological comparative evaluation of the BISAP and Computed tomography severity index scores as predictors of severity in acute pancreatitis.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Incremental Prognostic Value of the Admission Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index Beyond BISAP for Early Risk Stratification of Acute Pancreatitis in the Emergency Department.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Machine Learning for Risk Stratification in Acute Pancreatitis: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Multimodal AI for early prediction of adverse clinical outcomes in acute pancreatitis.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Explainable Machine Learning for Early Prediction of Surgical Necessity in Gastrointestinal Emergencies: A Multimodal Diagnostic Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Management and Prediction of Acute Pancreatitis Severity Using AI: A Surgical Perspective.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Prognostic analysis of acute pancreatitis due to different etiologies and establishment and validation of an early prediction model.Lipids in health and disease · 2026Article
- Red Cell Distribution Width-to-Albumin Ratio as an Early Predictor of Intensive Care Requirement and Mortality in Acute Pancreatitis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a 24-h predictive model for hypertriglyceridemic moderately severe acute pancreatitis: a single-center retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Factors Associated with ICU Admission and In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with Acute Pancreatitis: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Article
- Article
- Integrating Feature Selection, Machine Learning, and SHAP Explainability to Predict Severe Acute Pancreatitis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Acute Necrotizing Pancreatitis-Advances and Challenges in Management for Optimal Clinical Outcomes.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- AI and Machine Learning for Precision Medicine in Acute Pancreatitis: A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Review
- Predictive Value of Several Parameters for Severity of Acute Pancreatitis in a Cohort of 172 Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo systematically assess and compare the predictive value of the Ranson and Bedside Index of Severity in Acute Pancreatitis (BISAP) scoring systems for the severity and prognosis of acute pancreatitis (AP).
methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched until February 15, 2023. Outcomes in this analysis included severity and prognosis [mortality, organ failure, pancreatic necrosis, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission]. The revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used to evaluate the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. The threshold effect was evaluated for each outcome. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve (AUC) as well as 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. The DeLong test was used for AUC comparisons. For the outcome evaluated by over 9 studies, publication bias was assessed using the Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test.
resultsTotally 17 studies of 5476 AP patients were included. For severity, the pooled sensitivity of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.95 (95%CI: 0.87, 0.98) and 0.67 (95%CI: 0.27, 0.92); the pooled specificity of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.74 (0.52, 0.88) and 0.95 (95%CI: 0.85, 0.98); the pooled AUC of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.95 (95%CI: 0.93, 0.97) and 0.94 (95%CI: 0.92, 0.96) (P = 0.480). For mortality, the pooled sensitivity of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.89 (95%CI: 0.73, 0.96) and 0.77 (95%CI: 0.58, 0.89); the pooled specificity of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.79 (95%CI: 0.68, 0.87) and 0.90 (95%CI: 0.86, 0.93); the pooled AUC of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.91 (95%CI: 0.88, 0.93) and 0.92 (95%CI: 0.90, 0.94) (P = 0.480). For organ failure, the pooled sensitivity of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.84 (95%CI: 0.76, 0.90) and 0.78 (95%CI: 0.60, 0.90); the pooled specificity of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.84 (95%CI: 0.63, 0.94) and 0.90 (95%CI: 0.72, 0.97); the pooled AUC of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.86 (95%CI: 0.82, 0.88) and 0.90 (95%CI: 0.87, 0.93) (P = 0.110). For pancreatic necrosis, the pooled sensitivity of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.63 (95%CI: 0.35, 0.84) and 0.63 (95%CI: 0.23, 0.90); the pooled specificity of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.90 (95%CI: 0.77, 0.96) and 0.93 (95%CI: 0.89, 0.96); the pooled AUC of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.87 (95%CI: 0.84, 0.90) and 0.93 (95%CI: 0.91, 0.95) (P = 0.001). For ICU admission, the pooled sensitivity of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.86 (95%CI: 0.77, 0.92) and 0.63 (95%CI: 0.52, 0.73); the pooled specificity of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.58 (95%CI: 0.55, 0.61) and 0.84 (95%CI: 0.81, 0.86); the pooled AUC of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.92 (95%CI: 0.81, 1.00) and 0.86 (95%CI: 0.67, 1.00) (P = 0.592).
conclusionThe Ranson score was an applicable tool for predicting severity and prognosis of AP patients with reliable diagnostic accuracy in resource and time-limited settings. Future large-scale studies are needed to verify the findings.
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.