ArticleSurgery today2025
Scoring model for the diagnosis of colorectal perforation and its differentiation from gastroduodenal perforation.
Article in Surgery today, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDistinguishing colorectal from gastroduodenal perforations is clinically important and challenging. We aimed to establish a scoring model based on objective findings (excluding computed tomography findings) for the diagnosis of colorectal perforation and its differentiation from gastroduodenal perforation.
methodsPatients diagnosed with colorectal or gastroduodenal perforations between January 2014 and December 2021 were retrospectively studied. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify independent variables, and a scoring model was developed based on these variables.
resultsAmong 131 eligible patients, 64 (48.9%) were in the colorectal group and 67 (51.1%) were in the gastroduodenal group. White blood cell count, C-reactive protein, and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score were identified as independent clinical variables associated with the diagnosis of colorectal perforation, which differentiated colorectal perforation from gastroduodenal perforation, and were used to develop a new scoring model. The scores ranged from 0 to 5, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.846. The probabilities of colorectal perforation with scores of 0, 1.5, 2, 3, 3.5, and 5 were 3.2, 20, 55.6, 81.8, 73.9, and 82.4%, respectively.
conclusionThe new scoring model may help in treatment selection and perioperative management of patients with gastrointestinal perforation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39438336What 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.