ArticleCureus2026
Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of the Triglyceride-Glucose Index in Acute Pancreatitis: A Prospective Observational Study.
Article 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesAcute pancreatitis is a serious, life-threatening illness. Its early prediction can reduce the risk of organ dysfunction, morbidity, mortality, and hospital burden. Though many validated scores are being used in practice in predicting organ dysfunction and mortality among patients with acute pancreatitis, the triglyceride-glucose (TyG) index can also assess mortality risk in the same condition. However, there is a scarcity of studies assessing the predictive value of the TyG index in the Indian subcontinent. Hence, we planned to evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic value of the TyG index among patients with acute pancreatitis.
methodsThis observational study was conducted at Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS), Bhubaneswar, India, from December 15, 2025, to May 15, 2026. We obtained ethical approval prior to the commencement of the study. We assessed the TyG index in patients with acute pancreatitis admitted to our hospital during the study period. We compared those values with existing validated scores, such as the modified Marshall score and the Bedside Index for Severity in Acute Pancreatitis (BISAP) score. We computed the sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, and threshold values of the TyG index for diagnosing organ dysfunction in patients with acute pancreatitis and predicting in-hospital mortality of the study participants. R software (version 4.3.2) was used for data analysis.
resultsWe analyzed 185 patients with acute pancreatitis in this study. The study population's mean age was 54.8 ± 9.6 years. In our study, 138 (74.6%) participants were males. The mean serum amylase, lipase, triglyceride, and fasting blood glucose values were 553.3 U/L, 1148.6 U/L, 269.1 mg/dL, and 109.4 mg/dL, respectively. The mean TyG index was 8.98 ± 0.76. 24 (13.0%) patients died during their hospital stay. The sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, and threshold values of the TyG index in predicting organ dysfunction in patients with acute pancreatitis were 29.6%, 33.3%, 29.7%, and 7.11, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, and threshold values of the TyG index in predicting in-hospital mortality were 70.8%, 51.6%, 54.1%, and 6.70, respectively.
conclusionWe found that the TyG index had lower diagnostic accuracy for predicting organ dysfunction in patients with acute pancreatitis than the modified Marshall score. However, it had better prognostic performance in assessing the mortality risk.
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.