ReviewCureus2026
Prognostic Value of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) Score in Secondary Peritonitis: A Narrative Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Secondary peritonitis is a major surgical emergency worldwide and is associated with high morbidity and mortality, particularly in resource-limited settings. It most commonly results from perforation of a hollow viscus, causing contamination of the peritoneal cavity and triggering a severe systemic inflammatory response that may progress to sepsis and multi-organ dysfunction. Early identification of high-risk patients and objective assessment of disease severity are essential for guiding clinical decision-making, optimizing resource utilization, and improving outcomes. However, the lack of a precise and universally accepted classification system for acute generalized peritonitis limits accurate prognostic evaluation, and crude morbidity and mortality data alone are often inadequate for meaningful clinical audit. Prognostic scoring systems, therefore, play a crucial role in the management of critically ill surgical patients. Among these, the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score remains one of the most widely used and extensively validated tools. It provides an objective measure of disease severity based on acute physiological variables, age, and chronic health status, using data obtained within the first 24 hours of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Its simplicity, reproducibility, and applicability across diverse ICU populations have sustained its global use despite the availability of newer models. This narrative review evaluates the role of the APACHE II in patients with secondary peritonitis based on previously published literature. Available studies generally demonstrate a positive association between higher APACHE II scores and adverse outcomes, including increased mortality, prolonged ICU and hospital stay, higher postoperative complication rates, and a greater need for re-intervention. However, reported prognostic cut-off values vary across different populations, study designs, and clinical settings, particularly between ICU-based cohorts and broader surgical populations. Comparative studies suggest that while disease-specific scores such as the Mannheim Peritonitis Index may offer advantages in certain clinical contexts, APACHE II provides a broader physiological assessment. It is important to note that the score was originally developed and validated primarily in ICU settings where complete physiological data within the first 24 hours are available. When interpreted alongside clinical judgment, APACHE II remains a useful tool for risk stratification and prognostic assessment in patients with secondary peritonitis.
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.