From Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island; The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China; and Harvard Medical School and Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ann Intern Med. 2016 Oct 4;165(7):482-490. doi: 10.7326/M16-0650. Epub 2016 Jul 26.
Acute pancreatitis (AP) varies in severity, prompting development of systems aimed at predicting prognosis to help guide therapy. Although several prediction approaches are available, their test characteristics and clinical utility are not completely understood.
To evaluate the test characteristics (prognostic accuracy, incremental predictive value) and clinical utility (effect on patient outcomes) of severity scores for predicting mortality in AP.
Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE (inception to 3 May 2016).
Longitudinal studies, in any language, that evaluated the prognostic value of at least 1 clinical severity score in AP.
Dual data extraction and quality assessment.
Of 4039 citations screened, 94 unique studies evaluating 18 scores in 53 547 patients met the inclusion criteria. All studies provided data on prognostic accuracy, whereas 6 provided data on incremental predictive values. Most scores demonstrated low prognostic accuracy. The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score and the Ranson criteria were studied most extensively. The median sensitivity and specificity of APACHE II at a threshold of 7 were 100% (range, 68% to 100%) and 63% (range, 21% to 96%), respectively, and those of the Ranson criteria at a threshold of 2 were 90% (range, 0% to 100%) and 67% (range, 14% to 97%), respectively. Estimates of sensitivity were based on relatively few patients. Evidence was limited regarding the incremental predictive value of the scoring systems or their effect on patient outcomes.
Substantial clinical heterogeneity and inadequate methodological and reporting quality precluded a meta-analysis.
The test characteristics and clinical utility of AP severity scores remain uncertain. Additional studies with improved methodological rigor are needed, and the development of new scoring systems may be justified.
Global Scholarship Programme for Research Excellence for 2014 to 2015, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
急性胰腺炎(AP)的严重程度各不相同,这促使人们开发了旨在预测预后的系统,以帮助指导治疗。尽管有几种预测方法,但它们的测试特征和临床实用性尚不完全清楚。
评估用于预测 AP 死亡率的严重程度评分的测试特征(预后准确性、增量预测值)和临床实用性(对患者结局的影响)。
Ovid MEDLINE 和 EMBASE(从建库至 2016 年 5 月 3 日)。
评估至少 1 种临床严重程度评分在 AP 中的预后价值的任何语言的纵向研究。
双重数据提取和质量评估。
在筛选的 4039 条引文中有 94 项独特的研究,评估了 53547 例患者中的 18 项评分,符合纳入标准。所有研究都提供了预后准确性的数据,而 6 项研究提供了增量预测值的数据。大多数评分的预后准确性较低。急性生理学和慢性健康评估(APACHE)Ⅱ评分和 Ranson 标准的研究最多。APACHE Ⅱ评分阈值为 7 时的中位敏感性和特异性分别为 100%(范围,68%至 100%)和 63%(范围,21%至 96%),而 Ranson 标准的阈值为 2 时的敏感性和特异性分别为 90%(范围,0%至 100%)和 67%(范围,14%至 97%)。敏感性的估计值基于相对较少的患者。关于评分系统的增量预测值或其对患者结局的影响的证据有限。
大量的临床异质性以及方法学和报告质量的不足,使得无法进行荟萃分析。
AP 严重程度评分的测试特征和临床实用性仍然不确定。需要更多具有更高方法学严谨性的研究,并且可能有理由开发新的评分系统。
香港中文大学 2014 年至 2015 年全球卓越研究奖学金计划。