The Bedside Index for Severity in Acute Pancreatitis: a systematic review of prospective studies to determine predictive performance.
19 Sep 2017-Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives (Taylor & Francis)-Vol. 7, Iss: 4, pp 208-213
TL;DR: The BISAP has very good predictive performance for SAP across different patient population and etiologies, and studies to evaluate the impact of incorporating the B ISAP into clinical practice to improve outcome in acute pancreatitis are needed before adoption could be advocated with confidence.
Abstract: Background: predicting the development of severe disease has remained a major challenge in management of acute pancreatitis. The Bedside Index for Severity in Acute Pancreatitis (BISAP) is easy to calculate from the data available in the first 24 hours. Here, we performed a systematic review to determine the prognostic accuracy of the BISAP for severe acute pancreatitis (SAP). Methods: major databases of biomedical publications were searched during the first week of October 2015. Two independent reviewers searched records in two phases. Studies that reported prognostic accuracy of the BISAP for SAP from prospective cohorts were included. The pooled area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) was calculated. Results: Twelve studies were included for data-synthesis and methodology quality assessment was performed for 10. All the studies had enrolled consecutive patients, had a broad spectrum of the disease severity, reported explicit interpretation of the predictor, outcome of interest was well defined and had adequate follow-up. Blinded outcome assessment was reported in only one study. The pooled AUC was 0.85 (95% CI 0.80-0.90). There was significant heterogeneity, I2 86.6%. Studies using revised Atlanta classification in defining SAP had a pooled AUC of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.90-0.95), but heterogeneity persisted, I2 67%. Subgroup analysis based on rate of SAP (>20% vs <20%) did not eliminate the heterogeneity. Conclusion: the BISAP has very good predictive performance for SAP across different patient population and etiologies. Studies to evaluate the impact of incorporating the BISAP into clinical practice to improve outcome in acute pancreatitis are needed before adoption could be advocated with confidence.
Citations
More filters
09 Aug 2011
TL;DR: The 6 major stages in the development and testing of a new clinical decision rule are considered and a number of standards within each stage are discussed.
Abstract: The purpose of this review is to present a guide to help readers critically appraise the methodologic quality of an article or articles describing a clinical decision rule. This guide will also be useful to clinical researchers who wish to answer 1 or more questions detailed in this article. We consider the 6 major stages in the development and testing of a new clinical decision rule and discuss a number of standards within each stage. We use examples from emergency medicine and, in particular, examples from our own research on clinical decisions rules for radiography in trauma.
483 citations
TL;DR: The current understanding of the risk factors, pathophysiology, timing, impact on outcome, and therapy of organ failure in acute pancreatitis is reviewed and the distinctions between markers and mediators of severity are highlighted based on evidence supporting their causality in organ failure.
222 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: In this article, a clinical scoring system was developed for prediction of in-hospital mortality in acute pancreatitis using Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis, which was derived on data collected from 17 992 cases of AP from 212 hospitals in 2000-2001.
Abstract: Background: Identification of patients at risk for mortality early in the course of acute pancreatitis (AP) is an important step in improving outcome. Methods: Using Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis, a clinical scoring system was developed for prediction of in-hospital mortality in AP. The scoring system was derived on data collected from 17 992 cases of AP from 212 hospitals in 2000-2001. The new scoring system was validated on data collected from 18 256 AP cases from 177 hospitals in 2004-2005. The accuracy of the scoring system for prediction of mortality was measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The performance of the new scoring system was further validated by comparing its predictive accuracy with that of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Examination (APACHE) II. Results: CART analysis identified five variables for prediction of in-hospital mortality. One point is assigned for the presence of each of the following during the first 24 h: blood urea nitrogen (BUN) >25 mg/dl; impaired mental status; systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS); age >60 years; or the presence of a pleural effusion (BISAP). Mortality ranged from >20% in the highest risk group to <1% in the lowest risk group. In the validation cohort, the BISAP AUC was 0.82 (95% Cl 0.79 to 0.84) versus APACHE II AUC of 0.83 (95% Cl 0.80 to 0.85). Conclusions: A new mortality-based prognostic scoring system for use in AP has been derived and validated. The BISAP is a simple and accurate method for the early identification of patients at increased risk for in-hospital mortality.
139 citations
TL;DR: NLR, PLR, RDW, glucose, and BUN level of the SAP group were significantly increased compared to the mild acute pancreatitis (MAP) group on admission and the severity of AP increased as the NLR, SOFA, BISAP, Ranson, and Ranson increased.
64 citations
Cites result from "The Bedside Index for Severity in A..."
...Previous studies reported that BISAP was as good as APACHE II score and outperformed Ranson criteria in predicting severity and death of AP,([7,17,18]) but its accuracy in HLAP still needs to be improved in the future....
[...]
TL;DR: An overview of the available multifactorial scoring systems and biochemical markers for predicting severe AP with a special focus on their advantages and limitations is provided.
Abstract: Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a severe inflammation of the pancreas presented with sudden onset and severe abdominal pain with a high morbidity and mortality rate, if accompanied by severe local and systemic complications. Numerous studies have been published about the pathogenesis of AP; however, the precise mechanism behind this pathology remains unclear. Extensive research conducted over the last decades has demonstrated that the first 24 h after symptom onset are critical for the identification of patients who are at risk of developing complications or death. The identification of these subgroups of patients is crucial in order to start an aggressive approach to prevent mortality. In this sense and to avoid unnecessary overtreatment, thereby reducing the financial implications, the proper identification of mild disease is also important and necessary. A large number of multifactorial scoring systems and biochemical markers are described to predict the severity. Despite recent progress in understanding the pathophysiology of AP, more research is needed to enable a faster and more accurate prediction of severe AP. This review provides an overview of the available multifactorial scoring systems and biochemical markers for predicting severe AP with a special focus on their advantages and limitations.
61 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: A checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion should improve the usefulness ofMeta-an analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers.
Abstract: ObjectiveBecause of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health
and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature,
research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used
to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A
workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting
of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid
authors, reviewers, editors, and readers.ParticipantsTwenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based
on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social
sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open
to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.EvidenceWe conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the
conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE,
Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index
to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved
and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group
discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity,
study categorization, and statistical methods.Consensus ProcessFrom the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a
checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational
studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference
attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed.ConclusionsThe proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses
of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy,
methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should
improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers,
and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are
explored.
17,663 citations
"The Bedside Index for Severity in A..." refers methods in this paper
...Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) were followed in this systematic review andmeta-analysis [11]....
[...]
TL;DR: This international, web-based consensus provides clear definitions to classify acute pancreatitis using easily identified clinical and radiologic criteria and should encourage widespread adoption.
Abstract: Background and objective The Atlanta classification of acute pancreatitis enabled standardised reporting of research and aided communication between clinicians. Deficiencies identified and improved understanding of the disease make a revision necessary. Methods A web-based consultation was undertaken in 2007 to ensure wide participation of pancreatologists. After an initial meeting, the Working Group sent a draft document to 11 national and international pancreatic associations. This working draft was forwarded to all members. Revisions were made in response to comments, and the web-based consultation was repeated three times. The final consensus was reviewed, and only statements based on published evidence were retained. Results The revised classification of acute pancreatitis identified two phases of the disease: early and late. Severity is classified as mild, moderate or severe. Mild acute pancreatitis, the most common form, has no organ failure, local or systemic complications and usually resolves in the first week. Moderately severe acute pancreatitis is defined by the presence of transient organ failure, local complications or exacerbation of co-morbid disease. Severe acute pancreatitis is defined by persistent organ failure, that is, organ failure >48 h. Local complications are peripancreatic fluid collections, pancreatic and peripancreatic necrosis (sterile or infected), pseudocyst and walled-off necrosis (sterile or infected). We present a standardised template for reporting CT images. Conclusions This international, web-based consensus provides clear definitions to classify acute pancreatitis using easily identified clinical and radiologic criteria. The wide consultation among pancreatologists to reach this consensus should encourage widespread adoption.
3,415 citations
TL;DR: In the absence of accepted definitions for acute pancreatitis and its complications, it has not been possible to devise a clinical classification system useful for case management as discussed by the authors, which is why a group of 40 international authorities from six medical disciplines and 15 countries participated in a three-day meeting and open discussion.
Abstract: • Acute pancreatitis is a protean disease capable of wide clinical variation, ranging from mild discomfort to apocalyptic prostration. Moreover, the inflammatory process may remain localized in the pancreas, spread to regional tissues, or even involve remote organ systems. This variability in presentation and clinical course has plagued the study and management of acute pancreatitis since its original clinical description. In the absence of accepted definitions for acute pancreatitis and its complications, it has not been possible to devise a clinical classification system useful for case management. Following 3 days of group meetings and open discussions, unanimous consensus on a series of definitions and a clinically based classification system for acute pancreatitis was achieved by a diverse group of 40 international authorities from six medical disciplines and 15 countries. The proposed classification system will be of value to practicing clinicians in the care of individual patients and to academicians seeking to compare interinstitutional data. (Arch Surg.1993;128:586-590)
2,521 citations
TL;DR: Tests for small-study effects should routinely be performed in meta-analysis, particularly for moderate amounts of bias or meta-analyses based on a small number of small studies.
1,821 citations
"The Bedside Index for Severity in A..." refers background in this paper
...The distribution of asymmetry is consistent with publication bias [27]....
[...]
TL;DR: The burden of GI disease in the United States is estimated and the most common GI symptom is abdominal pain, while the total cost for outpatient GI endoscopy examinations was $32.4 billion.
1,741 citations