ReviewCureus2025
Risk Stratification Tools and Scoring Systems in Perforated Viscus: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Perforated viscus remains a high-risk surgical emergency with significant mortality despite advances in perioperative care. Accurate risk stratification is essential to guide triage, surgical decision-making, and postoperative management. The available scoring tools are the Boey score (three-variable risk model: shock, comorbidity, delay >24 hours), Peptic Ulcer Perforation (PULP) score, Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI), Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity (POSSUM), and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE-II), each addressing different dimensions of patient risk, ranging from physiological stability to intra-abdominal severity. Simpler models such as Boey and MPI are valuable in emergency and resource-limited settings due to their bedside applicability. In contrast, PULP and APACHE-II offer greater precision by integrating systemic comorbidities and biochemical indices, making them more suitable for tertiary centers. POSSUM provides a balanced approach by combining physiology with operative severity, though it may overestimate mortality. No single model is universally applicable, highlighting the need for context-specific use. Future research should focus on hybrid scoring systems that merge clinical simplicity with modern predictive analytics for broader global relevance.
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.