We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Review
Systematic Review
Calculating the risk of a pancreatic fistula after a pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review.
BACKGROUND: A post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality after a pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). This systematic review aimed to identify all scoring systems to predict POPF after a PD, consider their clinical applicability and assess the study quality.
METHOD: An electronic search was performed of Medline (1946-2014) and EMBASE (1996-2014) databases. Results were screened according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and quality assessed according to the QUIPS (quality in prognostic studies) tool.
RESULTS: Six eligible scoring systems were identified. Five studies used the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) definition. The proposed scores feature between two and five variables and of the 16 total variables, the majority (12) featured in only one score. Three scores could be fully completed pre-operatively whereas 1 score included intra-operative and two studies post-operative variables. Four scores were internally validated and of these, two scores have been subject to subsequent multicentre review. The median QUIPS score was 38 out of 50 (range 16-50).
CONCLUSION: These scores show potential in calculating the individualized patient risk of POPF. There is, however, much variation in current scoring systems and further validation in large multicentre cohorts is now needed.
METHOD: An electronic search was performed of Medline (1946-2014) and EMBASE (1996-2014) databases. Results were screened according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and quality assessed according to the QUIPS (quality in prognostic studies) tool.
RESULTS: Six eligible scoring systems were identified. Five studies used the International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula (ISGPF) definition. The proposed scores feature between two and five variables and of the 16 total variables, the majority (12) featured in only one score. Three scores could be fully completed pre-operatively whereas 1 score included intra-operative and two studies post-operative variables. Four scores were internally validated and of these, two scores have been subject to subsequent multicentre review. The median QUIPS score was 38 out of 50 (range 16-50).
CONCLUSION: These scores show potential in calculating the individualized patient risk of POPF. There is, however, much variation in current scoring systems and further validation in large multicentre cohorts is now needed.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app