SynthesisAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Comparison of the predictive value of different assessment times in the severity and prognostic outcomes of CTSI in patients with acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Machine Learning for Risk Stratification in Acute Pancreatitis: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute pancreatitis (AP) necessitates accurate severity and prognosis assessment. While the Computed Tomography Severity Index (CTSI) is widely used, its time-dependent predictive value remains unclarified. This meta-analysis compares the predictive efficacy of CTSI across assessment times for AP outcomes.
methodsSystematic searches were performed in PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science. Literature was collated by using EndNote 20. Methodological quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. Bivariate meta-analyses were conducted with Stata 16 and Meta-Disc 1.4.
resultsAnalysis of 28 studies (n = 5,419) revealed significant time-dependent variations: CTSI achieved optimal sensitivity for severity prediction at ≤ 48 h (0.84, 95%CI 0.78-0.89) with specificity 0.79 (0.76-0.82), and peak sensitivity for organ failure at ≤ 48 h (0.90, 0.82-0.95) though with moderate specificity (0.52, 0.48-0.57). Mortality prediction showed the highest sensitivity at ≤ 72 h (0.89, 0.74-0.97), despite suboptimal specificity (0.65, 0.61-0.68). Pancreatic necrosis detection demonstrated superior accuracy at > 72 h (sensitivity 0.91, 0.84-0.95; specificity 0.82, 0.79-0.85). The pooled area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values with 95% CI for overall predictive performance were: severity, 0.85 (0.82-0.88); organ failure, 0.86 (0.82-0.88); mortality, 0.85 (0.81-0.88); and pancreatic necrosis, 0.94 (0.99 - 0.96).
conclusionCTSI exhibits distinct temporal predictive patterns: ≤48 h assessments optimise early evaluation of severity/organ failure, ≤ 72 h scans best predict mortality, while delayed imaging (> 72 h) maximises pancreatic necrosis accuracy at the expense of clinical timeliness. Future research must standardise imaging timepoints, integrate CTSI with physiological biomarkers, and develop dynamic assessment models to resolve discrepancies in anatomical-pathophysiological prognostic factors in AP management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41261223What 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.