Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40299837›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2025

A systematic review on the prognostic role of radiologically-proven sarcopenia on the clinical outcomes of patients with acute pancreatitis.

Khang Duy Ricky Le, Harsh Patel, Emma Downie

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. 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

3 authors.

Khang Duy Ricky LeDepartment of General Surgical Specialties, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4532-8248
Harsh PatelDepartment of General Surgical Specialties, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2209-1161
Emma DownieDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2205-0397

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSarcopenia is a known risk factor for poor prognosis in chronic pancreatitis, however the impact of sarcopenia in acute pancreatitis (AP) is unknown. This systematic review examines the prognostic impact of sarcopenia on clinical outcomes in patients with acute pancreatitis.

methodsA systematic literature of Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was undertaken to identify articles relating to sarcopenia, AP, and computed tomography imaging. Data collected was related to studies' demographic population, presence of sarcopenia, sarcopenia assessment methodology, obesity, pancreatitis severity, and short- and long-term complications of AP.

resultsA total of four out of 114 unique peer-review articles were included in this review, encompassing 947 patients in total. Of the analysable data, 200 patients had sarcopenia and 640 did not. There was marked heterogeneity in the determination of the presence of sarcopenia between studies. No significant association was found between sarcopenia and pancreatic necrosis, organ failure, venous thromboembolism, recurrent acute pancreatitis, or mortality.

conclusionSarcopenia remains highly prevalent in patients suffering from acute pancreatitis. There is insufficient evidence to suggest sarcopenia is associated with poorer outcomes in patients with acute pancreatitis. More high-powered studies are required to further characterise the impact of sarcopenia on patients with acute pancreatitis.

Indexed as

PancreatitisSarcopeniaAcute DiseaseHumansPrognosisRisk FactorsTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID40299837
PMCPMC12040213

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.