ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2026
Clinical-radiological comparative evaluation of the BISAP and Computed tomography severity index scores as predictors of severity in acute pancreatitis.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the clinical and radiological performance of the Bedside Index for Severity in Acute Pancreatitis (BISAP) and the Computed Tomography Severity Index (CTSI) in predicting disease severity and mortality in patients with acute pancreatitis, providing locally relevant evidence from a tertiary care setting in Pakistan. Methodology: This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted at the Department of Radiology, Lady Reading Hospital-MTI, Peshawar, from January to December 2024. Data from 99 adult patients diagnosed with acute pancreatitis according to the Revised Atlanta Criteria (2012) were analyzed. BISAP scores were calculated using clinical and laboratory parameters recorded within 24 hours of admission, while CTSI was derived from contrast-enhanced CT findings. Disease severity was dichotomized into severe and non-severe categories for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Diagnostic accuracy, optimal cut-off values, and predictive performance of BISAP and CTSI for severity and in-hospital mortality were assessed. Results: Out of 99 patients, severe acute pancreatitis was identified in 35.4% by CTSI and 20.2% by BISAP scores. ROC analysis demonstrated superior predictive performance of BISAP scores for severe acute pancreatitis with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.667 (95% CI: 0.559-0.775; p = 0.006), compared to CTSI scores with an AUC of 0.571 (95% CI: 0.456-0.686; p = 0.239). For mortality prediction, BISAP scores showed better discrimination (AUC 0.846; 95% CI: 0.677-1.000; p = 0.021) with 100% sensitivity at the optimal cut-off, whereas CTSI scores demonstrated poor predictive ability (AUC 0.528; p = 0.852). Conclusion: BISAP demonstrated better predictive performance than CTSI in this cohort and may be a useful bedside tool for early risk stratification. CTSI remains valuable for assessing local pancreatic complications but has limited prognostic utility when used alone.
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.