Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42390782›Full record

ArticleUpdates in surgery2026

The utility of HALP, M-HALP, and the newly developed CANP scores in predicting prognosis of acute appendicitis.

Mustafa Hilkat Bilaloğlu, Emine Bilaloğlu, Meryem Kazaylek

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Updates in surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Mustafa Hilkat BilaloğluDepartment of General Surgery, Bayburt State Hospital, Bayburt, Turkey. drhilkatbilaloglu@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7146-9216
Emine BilaloğluDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Bayburt State Hospital, Bayburt, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0916-9534
Meryem KazaylekDepartment of Anesthesia and Reanimation, Inönü University Faculty of Medicine, Malatya, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-8547-2624

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We aimed to determine the effectiveness of the newly developed CANP score in determining prognosis by comparing it with the HALP score and the Modified HALP score in patients with complicated and uncomplicated acute appendicitis. After getting ethical approval and using the hospital data network, we retrospectively analyzed the demographic data, laboratory parameters, and pathology results of 80 female and 100 male patients aged from 15 to 95 years, who underwent surgery for acute appendicitis in the last two years. They were divided into patients with complicated and uncomplicated acute appendicitis. The HALP, Modified HALP, and CANP scores were compared by using statistical methods. According to the area under the ROC curve (AUC), the highest accuracy was found in the CANP score with an AUC of 0.980 (CI: 0.963-0.997), the sensitivity of 85.3%, and specificity of 97.3%. The AUC for M-HALP score was low as 0.322 (CI: 0.211-0.434), showing limited diagnostic value with a sensitivity of 26.5% and specificity of 58.9%. The AUC for the HALP score was the lowest, at 0.244 (CI: 0.161-0.328), with a sensitivity of 29.4% and specificity of 32.2%. Statistical significance was reported as p < 0.001. We showed that the CANP score, with a significantly higher AUC value and along with a higher sensitivity and specificity when compared to the HALP and M-HALP scores, was the most powerful discriminative parameter for predicting the complicated acute appendicitis, so it can be used as a more reliable scoring system in infectious diseases.

Indexed as

Acute appendicitisCanp scoreHalp scoreInfectious diseasesModified Halp scoreSepsis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.