Aim: The issue of which scoring system is appropriate in older adults patients with acute biliary pancreatitis is an ongoing debate. We aimed to compare the efficiency of four existing scoring systems in predicting clinical outcomes in the elderly with acute biliary pancreatitis.
Material and Method: The study included patients aged 60 years and older with a diagnosis of acute biliary pancreatitis. Clinical findings, routine laboratory examinations, and imaging findings were retrospectively accessed through the hospital information system and reviewed. Then, the efficacy of Ranson, Bedside Index of Severity in Acute Pancreatitis (BISAP), Glasgow-Imrie, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scoring systems in predicting mortality, severity, organ failure, complications, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and prolonged hospital stay (PHS) were compared.
Results: The Ranson score was compared with three other existing scoring systems in primary and secondary outcomes in 364 eligible patients. The area under the curve (AUC) values of the Ranson, BISAP, Glasgow, and APACHE II scores were 0.787 (95% CI: 0.649-0.925), 0.856 (95% CI: 0.784-0.929), 0.908 (95% CI: 0.854-0.961), and 0.836 (95% CI: 0.702-0.971) for mortality. Although the AUC of the Ranson score for mortality was lower than that of the other scores, no significant difference was found in pairwise comparisons with the other three scores (p>0.05 for all).
Conclusion: The Ranson scoring system was the weakest among the assessed scoring systems in predicting clinical outcomes in older adults with biliary pancreatitis.
Primary Language | English |
---|---|
Subjects | Health Care Administration |
Journal Section | Research Articles |
Authors | |
Publication Date | October 22, 2022 |
Published in Issue | Year 2022 |
TR DİZİN ULAKBİM and International Indexes (1b)
Interuniversity Board (UAK) Equivalency: Article published in Ulakbim TR Index journal [10 POINTS], and Article published in other (excuding 1a, b, c) international indexed journal (1d) [5 POINTS]
Note: Our journal is not WOS indexed and therefore is not classified as Q.
You can download Council of Higher Education (CoHG) [Yüksek Öğretim Kurumu (YÖK)] Criteria) decisions about predatory/questionable journals and the author's clarification text and journal charge policy from your browser. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/journal/3449/file/4924/show
Journal Indexes and Platforms:
TR Dizin ULAKBİM, Google Scholar, Crossref, Worldcat (OCLC), DRJI, EuroPub, OpenAIRE, Turkiye Citation Index, Turk Medline, ROAD, ICI World of Journal's, Index Copernicus, ASOS Index, General Impact Factor, Scilit.The indexes of the journal's are;
The platforms of the journal's are;
The indexes/platforms of the journal are;
TR Dizin Ulakbim, Crossref (DOI), Google Scholar, EuroPub, Directory of Research Journal İndexing (DRJI), Worldcat (OCLC), OpenAIRE, ASOS Index, ROAD, Turkiye Citation Index, ICI World of Journal's, Index Copernicus, Turk Medline, General Impact Factor, Scilit
EBSCO, DOAJ, OAJI is under evaluation.
Journal articles are evaluated as "Double-Blind Peer Review"