ArticleTurkish journal of emergency medicine
Comparing prognostic scoring systems in acute pancreatitis: Bedside Index of Severity in Acute Pancreatitis, WL, and Chinese Simple Scoring System Scores.
Article in Turkish journal of emergency medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Improved outcome prediction in acute pancreatitis with generated data and advanced machine learning algorithms.Turkish journal of emergency medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSeveral scoring systems are used to predict prognosis in acute pancreatitis (AP), but their predictive success varies. This study compares the validity of the commonly used Bedside Index of Severity in AP (BISAP) score with the newly developed WL score and the Chinese Simple Scoring System (CSSS) score in predicting mortality and unfavorable prognostic outcomes in AP patients.
methodsThis retrospective descriptive study included all AP patients presenting to the emergency department from June 2, 2019, to June 2, 2022. Patient demographics, vital signs, laboratory values, and imaging findings were recorded, and WL, CSSS, and BISAP scores were calculated. The effectiveness of these scores in predicting adverse outcomes and mortality was compared.
resultsAmong 357 patients, 53.2% were male, with a median age of 62 years (interquartile range: 48-75). Area under the curve (AUC) values for 7-day outcomes were 0.956 for WL, 0.759 for CSSS, and 0.871 for BISAP; for 30-day outcomes, AUC values were 0.941 for WL, 0.823 for CSSS, and 0.901 for BISAP; and for poor prognostic outcomes, AUC values were 0.792 for WL, 0.769 for CSSS, and 0.731 for BISAP.
conclusionIn AP patients, WL, CSSS, and BISAP scores are effective predictors of unfavorable prognosis and mortality. WL score outperforms the CSSS and BISAP scores in predicting 7-day and 30-day mortality and poor prognosis. After WL, BISAP is the second-best system for predicting mortality. For predicting unfavorable prognoses, CSSS is the second-best system after WL. The simplicity of calculating the WL score based on four laboratory parameters makes it a preferable choice.
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.