https://orcid.org/0009-0001-5620-231X
Figures
Abstract
Background
To systematically assess and compare the predictive value of the Ranson and Bedside Index of Severity in Acute Pancreatitis (BISAP) scoring systems for the severity and prognosis of acute pancreatitis (AP).
Methods
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched until February 15, 2023. Outcomes in this analysis included severity and prognosis [mortality, organ failure, pancreatic necrosis, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission]. The revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used to evaluate the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. The threshold effect was evaluated for each outcome. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve (AUC) as well as 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. The DeLong test was used for AUC comparisons. For the outcome evaluated by over 9 studies, publication bias was assessed using the Deeks’ funnel plot asymmetry test.
Results
Totally 17 studies of 5476 AP patients were included. For severity, the pooled sensitivity of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.95 (95%CI: 0.87, 0.98) and 0.67 (95%CI: 0.27, 0.92); the pooled specificity of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.74 (0.52, 0.88) and 0.95 (95%CI: 0.85, 0.98); the pooled AUC of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.95 (95%CI: 0.93, 0.97) and 0.94 (95%CI: 0.92, 0.96) (P = 0.480). For mortality, the pooled sensitivity of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.89 (95%CI: 0.73, 0.96) and 0.77 (95%CI: 0.58, 0.89); the pooled specificity of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.79 (95%CI: 0.68, 0.87) and 0.90 (95%CI: 0.86, 0.93); the pooled AUC of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.91 (95%CI: 0.88, 0.93) and 0.92 (95%CI: 0.90, 0.94) (P = 0.480). For organ failure, the pooled sensitivity of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.84 (95%CI: 0.76, 0.90) and 0.78 (95%CI: 0.60, 0.90); the pooled specificity of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.84 (95%CI: 0.63, 0.94) and 0.90 (95%CI: 0.72, 0.97); the pooled AUC of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.86 (95%CI: 0.82, 0.88) and 0.90 (95%CI: 0.87, 0.93) (P = 0.110). For pancreatic necrosis, the pooled sensitivity of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.63 (95%CI: 0.35, 0.84) and 0.63 (95%CI: 0.23, 0.90); the pooled specificity of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.90 (95%CI: 0.77, 0.96) and 0.93 (95%CI: 0.89, 0.96); the pooled AUC of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.87 (95%CI: 0.84, 0.90) and 0.93 (95%CI: 0.91, 0.95) (P = 0.001). For ICU admission, the pooled sensitivity of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.86 (95%CI: 0.77, 0.92) and 0.63 (95%CI: 0.52, 0.73); the pooled specificity of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.58 (95%CI: 0.55, 0.61) and 0.84 (95%CI: 0.81, 0.86); the pooled AUC of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.92 (95%CI: 0.81, 1.00) and 0.86 (95%CI: 0.67, 1.00) (P = 0.592).
Citation: Zhu J, Wu L, Wang Y, Fang M, Liu Q, Zhang X (2024) Predictive value of the Ranson and BISAP scoring systems for the severity and prognosis of acute pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 19(4): e0302046. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302046
Editor: Yoshihisa Tsuji, Sapporo Medical University, JAPAN
Received: October 20, 2023; Accepted: March 26, 2024; Published: April 30, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Zhu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Acute pancreatitis (AP), an inflammatory disease of the pancreas, is one of the most common gastrointestinal diseases which requires acute hospital admission, with a mounting incidence, significant morbidity and succeeding mortality [1–3]. This disorder exhibits varying severity [4]. The revised Atlanta Classification and Definitions in 2012 classifies AP as mild, moderately severe and severe acute [5]. The prognosis of AP patients primarily depends on the progress of organ failure and secondary infection of pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis [6]. Besides, patients with AP usually need intensive care unit (ICU) admission, particularly as signs of multi-organ failure appear [7]. Early severity stratification and prognostic prediction are essential for lowering the mortality rate of AP patients [8].
There are various scoring systems to evaluate the severity and outcomes of AP. The Ranson score, developed in 1974, is the first scoring system to predict AP, which has been criticized for its low predictive ability and delayed management despite continuous wide application [9, 10]. The Bedside Index of Severity in Acute Pancreatitis (BISAP) is a commonly used scoring system at present, and compared with the Ranson, the BISAP can be adopted at admission and has fewer parameters [11]. A review by Ong and Shelat shows that the Ranson score consistently exhibits similar predictive accuracy to the BISAP scoring system, advocating for the sustained clinical practicability of the Ranson score in modern times [9]. The Acute Physiology, and Chronic Health Examination II (APACHE II) has been reported to be the most accurate scoring system for predicting mortality [12]. It is the most widely utilized mortality prediction score among critically ill patients, but it had 12 items with many clinical parameters, so its application may be cumbersome which limits its widespread use. Besides, the APACHE II is devised for patients admitted to the ICU and is therefore not suitable for early prediction of the severity of AP. The BISAP and Ranson were shown to have overlapped AUCs with the APACHE II [13]. The BISAP and Ranson are determined upon admission or within 48 hours of admission, but in the computed tomography severity index (CTSI) prediction, the recommended timing for CT examination is 72 to 96 hours after symptom onset [14, 15]. This may limit the early predictive ability of CTSI, as the BISAP and Ranson can predict severity or mortality early with similar performances [12]. Additionally, the presence of inter-observer variability can affect the accuracy of CTSI score calculation [9]. For these reasons, this study paid attention to the early prediction of AP severity and outcomes with the Ranson and BISAP. Several studies have comprehensively evaluated the predictive performance of the BISAP for severity and prognosis in AP [16–18], whereas no specific meta-analysis is conducted for direct comparison between the Ranson and BISAP. Given that the Ranson does not consider imaging data, uses multiple parameters, and misses possibly valuable window for early treatment, whether it is still applicable requires comprehensive quantitative evaluation.
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to systematically assess and compare the predictive value of the Ranson and BISAP scoring systems for the severity and prognosis of AP based on the revised Atlanta Classification and Definitions in 2012.
Methods
Search strategy
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched by two independent authors (Y Wang, MD Fang). The last search was performed on February 15, 2023. English search terms included “Pancreatitis” OR “Pancreatitides” OR “Acute Pancreatitis” OR “Acute Pancreatitides” OR “Pancreatic Parenchymal Edema” OR “Pancreatic Parenchyma with Edema” OR “Peripancreatic Fat Necros*” AND “Ranson” OR “BISAP” OR “Bedside Index for Severity In Acute Pancreatitis”. Endnote X9 (Clarivate, Philadelphia, PA, USA) was applied for primary screening based on titles and abstracts of the retrieved studies, followed by screening according to full texts. Disagreements were settled by another author (JP Zhu) to reach a consensus. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the reporting guidelines of Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE).
Eligibility criteria
Inclusion criteria.
(a) studies on patients with AP of varying severity [5]; (b) studies reporting the BISAP versus Ranson with a cutoff point at 3 [17, 19]; (c) studies on at least one of the following outcomes: severity, mortality, organ failure, pancreatic necrosis, and ICU admission; (d) observational studies; (e) studies providing relevant data to calculate indicators such as sensitivity and specificity or area under the curve (AUC) values; (f) English literature; (g) studies published since 2012.
Exclusion criteria.
(a) studies on patients with chronic or recurrent pancreatitis, pregnant or lactating patients, or patients who had been hospitalized for less than 48 hours; (b) studies reporting the BISAP versus Ranson with an unclear cutoff point or a cutoff point that was not 3; (c) meta-analyses, reviews, meeting abstracts, animal experiments, case reports, letters, or comments.
Outcome measures
Outcomes in this analysis included severity and prognosis (mortality, organ failure, pancreatic necrosis, and ICU admission). Severity was defined as persistent single or multiple organ failure for more than 48 h. Organ failure was defined as two or more points in one of the cardiovascular, renal and respiratory systems in the modified Marshall scoring system. Pancreatic necrosis was defined as the absence of enhanced pancreatic parenchyma on contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT).
Data extraction and quality assessment
Two authors (Y Wang, MD Fang) independently collected data from eligible studies, including the first author, year of publication, author’s country, study period, study design, sample size (N), sex (male/female), age (years), etiology, and endpoints. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third author (LF Wu). The revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used to evaluate the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies, based on the risk of bias and clinical applicability [20]. The risk of bias includes patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Clinical applicability includes patient selection, index test, and reference standard. Each item was classified as high (risk), low (risk), or unclear (risk).
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was carried out by Meta-disc 1.4 (Clinical Biostatistics, Ramony Cajal Hospital, Madrid, Spain), Stata 15.1 (Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA), and Revman 5.4 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). Results were obtained through direct extraction or indirect calculation. Meta-disc 1.4 was adopted to determine whether there was a threshold effect. When the Spearman correlation coefficient between the logarithm of sensitivity and the logarithm of 1-specificity showed a strong positive correlation, it indicated the existence of a threshold effect. To measure the predictive performance of the Ranson and BISAP, Stata 15.1 was employed to assess the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) as well as 95% confidence intervals (CI) for clinical outcomes using a bivariate model. Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves were generated, and the AUC was calculated with 95%CI. The DeLong test was used for AUC comparisons. For the outcome evaluated by over 9 studies, publication bias was assessed using the Deeks’ funnel plot asymmetry test via Stata 15.1. Publication bias was neglected when a funnel plot was symmetric. Revman 5.4 was applied to draw a quality assessment chart for the included studies. P<0.05 was deemed as statistically significant differences.
Results
Study selection
A total of 3878 studies were identified, with 908 from PubMed, 946 from Embase, 606 Cochrane Library, and 1418 from Web of Science. After removing duplicates, 1815 studies were included for screening based on titles and abstracts. Then remaining 55 studies were subject to full-text screening. Ultimately, 17 [21–37] studies of 5476 AP patients were eligible for this systematic review and meta-analysis, with 15 studies included for quantitative analysis. Fig 1 presents the selection process of qualified studies.
Characteristics of the included studies
Among the included studies, 4 studies came from China, 4 from India, 4 from Korea, 3 from Pakistan, 1 from Serbia, and 1 from Singapore. The year of publication ranged from 2013 to 2022. Eight articles were designed as prospective studies, and 9 as retrospective studies. The characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 1.
Quality assessment
For the risk of bias, 16 studies [22–37] had low risks, and 1 study [21] exhibited a high risk in the patient selection; most studies had unclear risks in the index test; 6 studies [24–26, 28, 32, 37] showed high risks, and 11 [21–23, 27, 29–31, 33–36] had low risks in the reference standard; all the included studies had low risks in the flow and timing. For clinical applicability, all studies except 1 study [35] had low risks in the patient selection; 6 studies [23, 26, 29, 30, 34, 36] had high risks, and 11 studies [21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 31–33, 35, 37] had low risks in the index test; 8 studies [24–26, 28, 30, 32, 35, 37] had high risks, and 9 [21–23, 27, 29, 31, 33, 34, 36] showed low risks in the reference standard (Table 2).
Predictive performance of the Ranson and BISAP for severity
Four studies [21, 22, 31, 33] provided data on the Ranson and BISAP for severity. The SROC curves of the Ranson and BISAP did not present “shoulder-arm” distributions, indicating no threshold effects (Fig 2). Further, the Spearman correlation coefficient for the Ranson and BISAP was -0.8 (P = 0.2) and 0.6 (P = 0.4), respectively, which confirmed the absence of threshold effects.
SROC, Summary receiver operating characteristic; BISAP, Bedside Index of Severity in Acute Pancreatitis; AP, acute pancreatitis.
For the Ranson, the pooled sensitivity was 0.95 (95%CI: 0.87, 0.98); the pooled specificity was 0.74 (0.52, 0.88); the pooled PLR was 3.64 (95%CI: 1.74, 7.62); the pooled NLR was 0.07 (95%CI: 0.02, 0.21); the pooled DOR was 51.66 (95%CI: 9.28, 287.66), and the pooled AUC was 0.95 (95%CI: 0.93, 0.97). For the BISAP, the pooled sensitivity was 0.67 (95%CI: 0.27, 0.92); the pooled specificity was 0.95 (95%CI: 0.85, 0.98); the pooled PLR was 12.71 (95%CI: 4.07, 39.69); the pooled NLR was 0.35 (95%CI: 0.11, 1.09); the pooled DOR was 36.50 (95%CI: 5.57, 239.39), and the pooled AUC was 0.94 (95%CI: 0.92, 0.96). No significant difference was found in the pooled AUC between the Ranson and BISAP (P = 0.480) (Table 3, Fig 2, S1 Fig).
Cho et al. [27] showed that the AUC of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.848 (95%CI: 0.77–0.92) and 0.826 (95%CI: 0.74–0.92), respectively. In the study of Lee et al. [27], the AUC of the Ranson and BISAP was 0.76 (95%CI: 0.64–0.87) and 0.66 (95%CI: 0.50–0.82), respectively.
Predictive performance of the Ranson and BISAP for mortality
Comparison of the Ranson and BISAP for mortality was assessed by 12 studies [22, 23, 26, 28–33, 35–37]. No threshold effects were shown according to no “shoulder-arm” distributions in the SROC curves (Fig 3). The Spearman correlation coefficient for the Ranson and BISAP was 0.516 (P = 0.086) and 0.427 (P = 0.167), respectively, further suggesting the absence of threshold effects.
SROC, Summary receiver operating characteristic; BISAP, Bedside Index of Severity in Acute Pancreatitis; AP, acute pancreatitis.
For the Ranson, the pooled sensitivity was 0.89 (95%CI: 0.73, 0.96); the pooled specificity was 0.79 (95%CI: 0.68, 0.87); the pooled PLR was 4.22 (95%CI: 2.74, 6.50); the pooled NLR was 0.14 (95%CI: 0.05, 0.36); the pooled DOR was 30.37 (95%CI: 10.69, 86.29), and the pooled AUC was 0.91 (95%CI: 0.88, 0.93). For the BISAP, the pooled sensitivity was 0.77 (95%CI: 0.58, 0.89); the pooled specificity was 0.90 (95%CI: 0.86, 0.93); the pooled PLR was 8.00 (95%CI: 5.56, 11.50); the pooled NLR was 0.25 (95%CI: 0.13, 0.50); the pooled DOR was 31.59 (95%CI: 13.56, 73.58), and the pooled AUC was 0.92 (95%CI: 0.90, 0.94). No significant difference was found in the pooled AUC between the Ranson and BISAP (P = 0.480) (Table 3, Fig 3, S2 Fig).
Predictive performance of the Ranson and BISAP for organ failure
Information about organ failure was shown in 4 studies [24, 25, 28, 34]. No “shoulder-arm” distributions in the SROC curve illustrated that there were no threshold effects (Fig 4). The Spearman correlation coefficient for the Ranson and BISAP was 0.000 (P = 1.000) and 0.949 (P = 0.051), respectively, confirming no threshold effects.
SROC, Summary receiver operating characteristic; BISAP, Bedside Index of Severity in Acute Pancreatitis; AP, acute pancreatitis.
For the Ranson, the pooled sensitivity was 0.84 (95%CI: 0.76, 0.90); the pooled specificity was 0.84 (95%CI: 0.63, 0.94); the pooled PLR was 5.18 (95%CI: 1.99, 13.53); the pooled NLR was 0.19 (95%CI: 0.11, 0.31); the pooled DOR was 27.40 (95%CI: 7.41, 101.33), and the pooled AUC was 0.86 (95%CI: 0.82, 0.88). For the BISAP, the pooled sensitivity was 0.78 (95%CI: 0.60, 0.90); the pooled specificity was 0.90 (95%CI: 0.72, 0.97); the pooled PLR was 7.64 (95%CI: 3.01, 19.41); the pooled NLR was 0.24 (95%CI: 0.13, 0.44); the pooled DOR was 31.64 (95%CI: 15.69, 63.83), and the pooled AUC was 0.90 (95%CI: 0.87, 0.93). No significant difference was found in the pooled AUC between the Ranson and BISAP (P = 0.110) (Table 3, Fig 4, S3 Fig).
Predictive performance of the Ranson and BISAP for pancreatic necrosis
Five studies [24, 25, 28, 33, 37] evaluated the Ranson and BISAP for pancreatic necrosis. The SROC curves did not show “shoulder-arm” distributions, suggesting no threshold effects (Fig 5). The Spearman correlation coefficient for the Ranson and BISAP was -0.8 (P = 0.104) and -0.6 (P = 0.285), respectively, further indicating the absence of threshold effects.
SROC, Summary receiver operating characteristic; BISAP, Bedside Index of Severity in Acute Pancreatitis; AP, acute pancreatitis.
For the Ranson, the pooled sensitivity was 0.63 (95%CI: 0.35, 0.84); the pooled specificity was 0.90 (95%CI: 0.77, 0.96); the pooled PLR was 6.04 (95%CI: 1.78, 20.54); the pooled NLR was 0.42 (95%CI: 0.19, 0.92); the pooled DOR was 14.48 (95%CI: 2.02, 103.94), and the pooled AUC was 0.87 (95%CI: 0.84, 0.90). For the BISAP, the pooled sensitivity was 0.63 (95%CI: 0.23, 0.90); the pooled specificity was 0.93 (95%CI: 0.89, 0.96); the pooled PLR was 8.97 (95%CI: 3.98, 20.19); the pooled NLR was 0.40 (95%CI: 0.13, 1.19); the pooled DOR was 22.39 (95%CI: 3.64, 137.79), and the pooled AUC was 0.93 (95%CI: 0.91, 0.95). A significant difference was found in the pooled AUC between the Ranson and BISAP (P = 0.001) (Table 3, Fig 5, S4 Fig).
Predictive performance of the Ranson and BISAP for ICU admission
Three studies [25, 31, 34] were identified for ICU admission. A “shoulder-arm” distribution was demonstrated in the SROC curve for the Ranson, indicating the existence of a threshold effect. The Spearman correlation coefficient for the Ranson was 1.000 (P = 0.000), which further confirmed the presence of threshold effects. No “shoulder-arm” distribution and a Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.5 (P = 0.667) for the BISAP suggested that no threshold effect existed (Fig 6).
SROC, Summary receiver operating characteristic; BISAP, Bedside Index of Severity in Acute Pancreatitis; ICU, intensive care unit; AP, acute pancreatitis.
For the Ranson, the pooled sensitivity was 0.86 (95%CI: 0.77, 0.92); the pooled specificity was 0.58 (95%CI: 0.55, 0.61); the pooled PLR was 2.93 (95%CI: 1.43, 6.00); the pooled NLR was 0.23 (95%CI: 0.14, 0.38); the pooled DOR was 26.80 (95%CI: 5.31, 135.23), and the pooled AUC was 0.92 (95%CI: 0.81, 1.00). For the BISAP, the pooled sensitivity was 0.63 (95%CI: 0.52, 0.73); the pooled specificity was 0.84 (95%CI: 0.81, 0.86); the pooled PLR was 3.50 (95%CI: 1.70, 7.24); the pooled NLR was 0.47 (95%CI: 0.21, 1.07); the pooled DOR was 7.68 (95%CI: 2.49, 23.74), and the pooled AUC was 0.86 (95%CI: 0.67, 1.00). No significant difference was found in the pooled AUC between the Ranson and BISAP (P = 0.592) (Table 3, Fig 6, S5 Fig).
Discussion
This meta-analysis comprehensively assessed and compared the performance of the Ranson and BISAP in predicting the severity and prognosis of AP for the first time. The combined results illustrated that the Ranson had a similar predictive capability to the BISAP; the sensitivity of the Ranson was higher than that of the BISAP, while the BISAP showed higher specificity, PLR and NLR than the Ranson in general.
Chandra et al. [16] conducted a systematic review to estimate the predictive performance of the BISAP for severe AP, and showed that the BISAP had good predictive value under the revised Atlanta Classification (AUC = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.90, 0.95). A previous meta-analysis also measured the predictive ability of the BISAP for the severity of AP, and the BISAP exhibited low sensitivity (0.65, 95%CI: 0.54, 0.74) but high specificity (0.84, 95%CI: 0.70, 0.92) [17]. In another meta-analysis by Gao et al. [18], the BISAP was identified as a reliable in predicting mortality and severity in AP, and in contrast to the Ranson, the BISAP had lower sensitivity and greater specificity. The current meta-analysis specifically investigated and compared the predictive value of the Ranson and BISAP for the severity and prognosis (mortality, organ failure, pancreatic necrosis, and ICU admission) of AP patients, in order to assess the current applicability of the Ranson score in the clinical practice.
As regards prediction of severity and prognosis in AP, the Ranson exhibited a comparable AUC to the BISAP, suggesting that the Ranson and BISAP had an equivalent performance in general. Further, it was found that the Ranson had greater sensitivity but lower specificity than the BISAP. These findings were partially supported by Gao et al. [18] and Papachristou et al. [38], and indicated that the Ranson was an applicable tool for predicting severity and prognosis of patients with AP, with reliable diagnostic accuracy, although its specificity needs to be improved in the future. Mikó et al. [13] also reported similar predictive value of the Ranson and BISAP for mortality and severity of AP. Notably, the Ranson had some important strengths. First, an increase in fluid sequestration within 2 days after admission was evidently associated with persistent organ failure specific to severe AP [39–41], and the factor fluid sequestration is unique to the Ranson score. Second, the Ranson score consists of 11 clinical and laboratory parameters, which allows a more comprehensive consideration of patients, thus increasing the predictive reliability. As for the BISAP, despite 5 parameters required at admission, which simplifies the score assessment, collection of imaging data depends on the physical condition of patients and medical equipment in the hospital. This fact makes it impossible to obtain imaging data from each patient. Third, parameters at 48 hours after admission can reflect dynamic changes in patients’ condition. Evidence has shown that 48-hour variables required by the Ranson enhanced its prognostic accuracy [42, 43]. Based on the above and considering the practicality of the Ranson score in the context of limited resources and time, the Ranson can still be applied in current clinical practice.
The present meta-analysis included 17 studies [21–37] with 5476 AP patients, and evaluated the predictive performance of the Ranson versus BISAP for severity, mortality, organ failure, pancreatic necrosis, and ICU admission in AP, based on the latest Atlanta Classification and Definitions in 2012. Publication bias may not exist, indicating the stability of the results to some extent. According to the findings, clinicians may adopt the Ranson score to predict disease severity and outcomes for patients with AP, and provide personalized counselling and intervention strategies for better management of AP and prognosis improvement of patients. Several limitations should be noted in this study. Firstly, the results showed high heterogeneity. Different etiologies may increase heterogeneity, but due to the mixed etiologies in most patients, subgroup analysis based on etiology could not be achieved. Besides, age may affect heterogeneity, and evidence has shown that the BISAP can effectively predict the severity, pancreatic necrosis, and death of elderly patients with acute pancreatitis, and the Ranson is more effective in assessing the severity of young patients [44], but all the included studies reported mixed ages, which made further subgroup analysis impossible. Secondly, the majority of the included studies were performed in Asia, and the lack of research on other regions may limit the extrapolation of our results. Thirdly, the number of the included studies was small for some outcomes, potentially affecting the stability of the results.
Conclusion
The Ranson score exhibited a similar predictive performance to the BISAP, and had greater sensitivity but lower specificity than the BISAP, indicating the applicability and accuracy of the Ranson in predicting severity and prognosis of AP patients under limited resources and time. More large-scale studies are warranted to confirm these findings.
Supporting information
S1 Fig. Sensitivity and specificity of the (a) Ranson and (b) BISAP for predicting severity in AP.
BISAP, Bedside Index of Severity in Acute Pancreatitis; AP, acute pancreatitis.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302046.s001
(TIF)
S2 Fig. Sensitivity and specificity of the (a) Ranson and (b) BISAP for predicting mortality in AP.
BISAP, Bedside Index of Severity in Acute Pancreatitis; AP, acute pancreatitis.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302046.s002
(TIF)
S3 Fig. Sensitivity and specificity of the (a) Ranson and (b) BISAP for predicting organ failure in AP.
BISAP, Bedside Index of Severity in Acute Pancreatitis; AP, acute pancreatitis.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302046.s003
(TIF)
S4 Fig. Sensitivity and specificity of the (a) Ranson and (b) BISAP for predicting pancreatic necrosis in AP.
BISAP, Bedside Index of Severity in Acute Pancreatitis; AP, acute pancreatitis.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302046.s004
(TIF)
S5 Fig. Sensitivity and specificity of the Ranson and BISAP for predicting ICU admission in AP.
(a) Sensitivity of the Ranson; (b) Specificity of the Ranson; (c) Sensitivity of the BISAP; (d) Specificity of the BISAP. BISAP, Bedside Index of Severity in Acute Pancreatitis; ICU, intensive care unit; AP, acute pancreatitis.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302046.s005
(TIF)
S6 Fig. Publication bias assessment of the Ranson for morality in AP.
AP, acute pancreatitis.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302046.s006
(TIF)
S7 Fig. Publication bias assessment of the BISAP for morality in AP.
AP, acute pancreatitis.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302046.s007
(TIF)
References
- 1. van Dijk SM, Hallensleben NDL, van Santvoort HC, Fockens P, van Goor H, Bruno MJ, et al. Acute pancreatitis: recent advances through randomised trials. Gut. 2017;66(11):2024–32. Epub 2017/08/26. pmid:28838972.
- 2. Lee PJ, Papachristou GI. New insights into acute pancreatitis. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;16(8):479–96. Epub 2019/05/30. pmid:31138897.
- 3. Gardner TB. Acute Pancreatitis. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174(2):Itc17–itc32. Epub 2021/02/09. pmid:33556276.
- 4. Mederos MA, Reber HA, Girgis MD. Acute Pancreatitis: A Review. Jama. 2021;325(4):382–90. Epub 2021/01/27. pmid:33496779.
- 5. Banks PA, Bollen TL, Dervenis C, Gooszen HG, Johnson CD, Sarr MG, et al. Classification of acute pancreatitis—2012: revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut. 2013;62(1):102–11. Epub 2012/10/27. pmid:23100216.
- 6. Boxhoorn L, Voermans RP, Bouwense SA, Bruno MJ, Verdonk RC, Boermeester MA, et al. Acute pancreatitis. Lancet. 2020;396(10252):726–34. Epub 2020/09/07. pmid:32891214.
- 7. Crosignani A, Spina S, Marrazzo F, Cimbanassi S, Malbrain M, Van Regenemortel N, et al. Intravenous fluid therapy in patients with severe acute pancreatitis admitted to the intensive care unit: a narrative review. Ann Intensive Care. 2022;12(1):98. Epub 2022/10/18. pmid:36251136.
- 8. Zhou H, Mei X, He X, Lan T, Guo S. Severity stratification and prognostic prediction of patients with acute pancreatitis at early phase: A retrospective study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(16):e15275. Epub 2019/04/23. pmid:31008971.
- 9. Ong Y, Shelat VG. Ranson score to stratify severity in Acute Pancreatitis remains valid—Old is gold. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;15(8):865–77. Epub 2021/05/05. pmid:33944648.
- 10. Ranson JH, Rifkind KM, Roses DF, Fink SD, Eng K, Localio SA. Objective early identification of severe acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 1974;61(6):443–51. Epub 1974/06/01. pmid:4835417.
- 11. Valverde-López F, Matas-Cobos AM, Alegría-Motte C, Jiménez-Rosales R, Úbeda-Muñoz M, Redondo-Cerezo E. BISAP, RANSON, lactate and others biomarkers in prediction of severe acute pancreatitis in a European cohort. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;32(9):1649–56. Epub 2017/02/17. pmid:28207167.
- 12. Knaus WA, Wagner DP, Draper EA, et al. The APACHE III prognostic system. Risk prediction of hospital mortality for critically ill hospitalized adults. Chest. 1991;100(6):1619–36. Epub 1991/12/01. pmid:1959406.
- 13. Mikó A, Vigh É, Mátrai P, Soós A, Garami A, Balaskó M, et al. Computed Tomography Severity Index vs. Other Indices in the Prediction of Severity and Mortality in Acute Pancreatitis: A Predictive Accuracy Meta-analysis. Front Physiol. 2019;10:1002. Epub 2019/09/12. pmid:31507427.
- 14. Working Group IAP/APA Acute Pancreatitis Guidelines. IAP/APA evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis. Pancreatology. 2013;13(4 Suppl 2):e1–15. Epub 2013/09/27. pmid:24054878.
- 15. Hritz I, Czakó L, Dubravcsik Z, Farkas G, Kelemen D, Lásztity N, et al. Akut pancreatitis. A Magyar Hasnyálmirigy Munkacsoport bizonyítékon alapuló kezelési irányelvei [Acute pancreatitis. Evidence-based practice guidelines, prepared by the Hungarian Pancreatic Study Group]. Orv Hetil. 2015;156(7):244–61. Epub 2015/02/11. pmid:25661970.
- 16. Chandra S, Murali A, Bansal R, Agarwal D, Holm A. The Bedside Index for Severity in Acute Pancreatitis: a systematic review of prospective studies to determine predictive performance. J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect. 2017;7(4):208–13. Epub 2017/10/20. pmid:29046745.
- 17. Yang YX, Li L. Evaluating the Ability of the Bedside Index for Severity of Acute Pancreatitis Score to Predict Severe Acute Pancreatitis: A Meta-Analysis. Med Princ Pract. 2016;25(2):137–42. Epub 2015/11/28. pmid:26613249.
- 18. Gao W, Yang HX, Ma CE. The Value of BISAP Score for Predicting Mortality and Severity in Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0130412. Epub 2015/06/20. pmid:26091293.
- 19. Banks PA, Freeman ML. Practice guidelines in acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101(10):2379–400. Epub 2006/10/13. pmid:17032204.
- 20. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529–36. Epub 2011/10/19. pmid:22007046.
- 21. Arif A, Jaleel F, Rashid K. Accuracy of BISAP score in prediction of severe acute pancreatitis. Pak J Med Sci. 2019;35(4):1008–12. Epub 2019/08/03. pmid:31372133.
- 22. Cho YS, Kim HK, Jang EC, Yeom JO, Kim SY, Yu JY, et al. Usefulness of the Bedside Index for severity in acute pancreatitis in the early prediction of severity and mortality in acute pancreatitis. Pancreas. 2013;42(3):483–7. Epub 2013/02/23. pmid:23429493.
- 23. Cho SK, Huh JH, Yoo JS, Kim JW, Lee KJ. HOMA-estimated insulin resistance as an independent prognostic factor in patients with acute pancreatitis. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):14894. Epub 2019/10/19. pmid:31624312.
- 24. Hagjer S, Kumar N. Evaluation of the BISAP scoring system in prognostication of acute pancreatitis—A prospective observational study. Int J Surg. 2018;54(Pt A):76–81. Epub 2018/04/24. pmid:29684670.
- 25. Harshit Kumar A, Singh Griwan M. A comparison of APACHE II, BISAP, Ranson’s score and modified CTSI in predicting the severity of acute pancreatitis based on the 2012 revised Atlanta Classification. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2018;6(2):127–31. Epub 2018/05/22. pmid:29780601.
- 26. Kapadia NN, Siddiqui E. Bedside index (BISAP) v/s Ranson scores in predicting mortality and severity in patients with acute pancreatitis. J Pak Med Assoc. 2021;71(8):1988–91. Epub 2021/08/22. pmid:34418016.
- 27. Lee KJ, Kim HM, Choi JS, Kim YJ, Kim YS, Cho JH. Comparison of Predictive Systems in Severe Acute Pancreatitis According to the Revised Atlanta Classification. Pancreas. 2016;45(1):46–50. Epub 2015/09/22. pmid:26390419.
- 28. Park JY, Jeon TJ, Ha TH, Hwang JT, Sinn DH, Oh TH, et al. Bedside index for severity in acute pancreatitis: comparison with other scoring systems in predicting severity and organ failure. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2013;12(6):645–50. Epub 2013/12/11. pmid:24322751.
- 29. Shabbir S, Jamal S, Khaliq T, Khan ZM. Comparison of BISAP Score with Ranson’s Score in Determining the Severity of Acute Pancreatitis. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2015;25(5):328–31. Epub 2015/05/27. pmid:26008656.
- 30. Spasi M, Jankovi S, Stefanovi S, Kosti I, Radovanovi D, Orevi N, et al. Clinical and laboratory parameters associated with death in acute pancreatitis. National Library of Serbia. 2017;(9).
- 31. Teng TZJ, Tan JKT, Baey S, Gunasekaran SK, Junnarkar SP, Low JK, et al. Sequential organ failure assessment score is superior to other prognostic indices in acute pancreatitis. World J Crit Care Med. 2021;10(6):355–68. Epub 2021/12/11. pmid:34888161.
- 32. Wu Q, Wang J, Qin M, Yang H, Liang Z, Tang G. Accuracy of conventional and novel scoring systems in predicting severity and outcomes of acute pancreatitis: a retrospective study. Lipids Health Dis. 2021;20(1):41. Epub 2021/04/29. pmid:33906658.
- 33. Yadav J, Yadav SK, Kumar S, Baxla RG, Sinha DK, Bodra P, et al. Predicting morbidity and mortality in acute pancreatitis in an Indian population: a comparative study of the BISAP score, Ranson’s score and CT severity index. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2016;4(3):216–20. Epub 2015/03/04. pmid:25733696.
- 34. Yan G, Li H, Bhetuwal A, McClure MA, Li Y, Yang G, et al. Pleural effusion volume in patients with acute pancreatitis: a retrospective study from three acute pancreatitis centers. Ann Med. 2021;53(1):2003–18. Epub 2021/11/04. pmid:34727802.
- 35. Yang L, Liu J, Xing Y, Du L, Chen J, Liu X, et al. Comparison of BISAP, Ranson, MCTSI, and APACHE II in Predicting Severity and Prognoses of Hyperlipidemic Acute Pancreatitis in Chinese Patients. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2016;2016:1834256. Epub 2016/11/25. pmid:27882045.
- 36. Zhao Y, Xia W, Lu Y, Chen W, Zhao Y, Zhuang Y. Predictive value of the C-reactive protein/albumin ratio in severity and prognosis of acute pancreatitis. Front Surg. 2022;9:1026604. Epub 2023/01/28. pmid:36704518.
- 37. Athavale VS, Jaiswal R., Suma R., Kelshikar S., Shenoy A. A Comparative Study Between BISAP Score And RANSON Score In Predicting Severity Of Acute Pancreatitis. Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results. 2022;13(9):10425–37.
- 38. Papachristou GI, Muddana V, Yadav D, O’Connell M, Sanders MK, Slivka A, et al. Comparison of BISAP, Ranson’s, APACHE-II, and CTSI scores in predicting organ failure, complications, and mortality in acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(2):435–41; quiz 42. Epub 2009/10/29. pmid:19861954.
- 39. Takeda T, Nakai Y, Mizuno S, Suzuki T, Sato T, Hakuta R, et al. Fluid sequestration is a useful parameter in the early identification of severe disease of acute pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol. 2019;54(4):359–66. Epub 2018/11/28. pmid:30478723.
- 40. de-Madaria E, Banks PA, Moya-Hoyo N, Wu BU, Rey-Riveiro M, Acevedo-Piedra NG, et al. Early factors associated with fluid sequestration and outcomes of patients with acute pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12(6):997–1002. Epub 2013/11/05. pmid:24183957.
- 41. Han C, Zeng J, Lin R, Liu J, Qian W, Ding Z, et al. The utility of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio and fluid sequestration as an early predictor of severe acute pancreatitis. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):10704. Epub 2017/09/08. pmid:28878366.
- 42. Venkatesh NR, Vijayakumar C, Balasubramaniyan G, Chinnakkulam Kandhasamy S, Sundaramurthi S, G SS, et al. Comparison of Different Scoring Systems in Predicting the Severity of Acute Pancreatitis: A Prospective Observational Study. Cureus. 2020;12(2):e6943. Epub 2020/03/20. pmid:32190494.
- 43. Eachempati SR, Hydo LJ, Barie PS. Severity scoring for prognostication in patients with severe acute pancreatitis: comparative analysis of the Ranson score and the APACHE III score. Arch Surg. 2002;137(6):730–6. Epub 2002/06/07. pmid:12049546.
- 44. Li Y, Zhang J, Zou J. Evaluation of four scoring systems in prognostication of acute pancreatitis for elderly patients. BMC Gastroenterol. 2020;20(1):165. Epub 2020/06/04. pmid:32487074.