首页> 外文OA文献 >Computed Tomography Severity Index vs. Other Indices in the Prediction of Severity and Mortality in Acute Pancreatitis: A Predictive Accuracy Meta-analysis
【2h】

Computed Tomography Severity Index vs. Other Indices in the Prediction of Severity and Mortality in Acute Pancreatitis: A Predictive Accuracy Meta-analysis

机译:计算机断层扫描严重程度指数与其他指数在急性胰腺炎中预测严重程度和死亡率:预测准确性荟萃分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Background: The management of the moderate and severe forms of acute pancreatitis (AP) with necrosis and multiorgan failure remains a challenge. To predict the severity and mortality of AP multiple clinical, laboratory-, and imaging-based scoring systems are available.Aim: To investigate, if the computed tomography severity index (CTSI) can predict the outcomes of AP better than other scoring systems.Methods: A systematic search was performed in three databases: Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Eligible records provided data from consecutive AP cases and used CTSI or modified CTSI (mCTSI) alone or in combination with other prognostic scores [Ranson, bedside index of severity in acute pancreatitis (BISAP), Acute Physiology, and Chronic Health Examination II (APACHE II), C-reactive protein (CRP)] for the evaluation of severity or mortality of AP. Area under the curves (AUCs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and aggregated with STATA 14 software using the metandi module.Results: Altogether, 30 studies were included in our meta-analysis, which contained the data of 5,988 AP cases. The pooled AUC for the prediction of mortality was 0.79 (CI 0.73–0.86) for CTSI; 0.87 (CI 0.83–0.90) for BISAP; 0.80 (CI 0.72–0.89) for mCTSI; 0.73 (CI 0.66–0.81) for CRP level; 0.87 (CI 0.81–0.92) for the Ranson score; and 0.91 (CI 0.88–0.93) for the APACHE II score. The APACHE II scoring system had significantly higher predictive value for mortality than CTSI and CRP (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively), while the predictive value of CTSI was not statistically different from that of BISAP, mCTSI, CRP, or Ranson criteria. The AUC for the prediction of severity of AP were 0.80 (CI 0.76–0.85) for CTSI; 0.79, (CI 0.72–0.86) for BISAP; 0.83 (CI 0.75–0.91) for mCTSI; 0.73 (CI 0.64–0.83) for CRP level; 0.81 (CI 0.75–0.87) for Ranson score and 0.80 (CI 0.77–0.83) for APACHE II score. Regarding severity, all tools performed equally.Conclusion: Though APACHE II is the most accurate predictor of mortality, CTSI is a good predictor of both mortality and AP severity. When the CT scan has been performed, CTSI is an easily calculable and informative tool, which should be used more often in routine clinical practice.
机译:背景:急性胰腺炎(AP)的急剧胰腺炎(AP)的管理仍然是挑战。为了预测AP的严重程度和死亡率,可获得多个临床,实验室和成像的评分系统。探讨,如果计算的断层扫描严重性指数(CTSI)可以比其他评分系统更好地预测AP的结果。方法:在三个数据库中执行系统搜索:PubMed,Embase和Cochrane库。符合条件的记录提供了连续的AP案件的数据,并使用CTSI或修改的CTSI(MCTSI)单独或与其他预后分数(急性胰腺炎(BISAP),急性生理学和慢性健康检查的严重程度组合使用(Apache II ),C反应蛋白(CRP)]用于评估AP的严重程度或死亡率。使用Metandi模块计算并使用95%置信区间(CIS)的曲线(AUC)的面积与STATA 14软件进行计算并与STATA 14软件汇总。结果:我们的META分析中包含30项研究,其中包含5,988例AP病例的数据。 CTSI的汇集AUC用于预测死亡率为0.79(CI 0.73-0.86); 0.87(CI 0.83-0.90)的BISAP; MCTSI 0.80(CI 0.72-0.89); CRP水平0.73(CI 0.66-0.81); 0.87(CI 0.81-0.92),用于兰逊得分;和0.91(CI 0.88-0.93)用于Apache II得分。 Apache II评分系统的死亡率显着高于CTSI和CRP(分别为P = 0.001和P <0.001),而CTSI的预测值与BISAP,MCTSI,CRP或Ranson标准的预测值没有统计学不同。用于预测AP严重程度的AUC为CTSI为0.80(CI 0.76-0.85); 0.79,(CI 0.72-0.86)的BISAP; MCTSI 0.83(CI 0.75-0.91); CRP水平0.73(CI 0.64-0.83); 0.81(CI 0.75-0.87)用于兰逊得分和0.80(CI 0.77-0.83),用于Apache II得分。关于严重程度,所有工具同样执行。结论:尽管Apache II是最准确的死亡率预测因子,但CTSI是死亡率和AP严重程度的良好预测因子。当已经执行CT扫描时,CTSI是一种易于计算和信息性的工具,其应更常用于常规临床实践中。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号