4.6 Review

The value of procalcitonin at predicting the severity of acute pancreatitis and development of infected pancreatic necrosis: Systematic review

Journal

SURGERY
Volume 146, Issue 1, Pages 72-81

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2009.02.013

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Many studies have evaluated serum levels of procalcitonin (PCT) as a predictor in the development of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) and infected pancreatic necrosis (H-W). This study assesses the value of PCT as a marker of development of SAP and IPN. Methods. Medline, Web of Science, the Cochrane clinical trials register, and international conference proceedings were searched systematically for prospective studies, which evaluated the usefulness of PCT as a marker of SAP and IPN. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) were calculated for each study, and the study quality and heterogeneity among the studies were evaluated. Results. Twenty-four of 59 studies identified were included in data extraction. The sensitivity and specificity of PCT for development of SAP were 0.72 and 0.86, respectively (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.87; DOR = 14.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.6-39.8), albeit with a significant degree of heterogeneity Q = 28.56, P .01). The sensitivity and specificity of PCT for prediction of infected pancreatic necrosis were 0.80 and 0.91 (AUC = 0.91; DOR = 28.3; 95% CI = 13.8-58.3) with no significant heterogeneity Q = 7.83, P = .18). No significant heterogeneity was observed among the studies when only higher quality studies (AUC = 0.91; DOR = 30.7; 95% CI = 10. 7-87.8) or studies that used a cutoff PCT level >0.5 ng/mL (AUC = 0.88, 32.8; 95% CI = 10.1-106.6) were included. Conclusion. Serum measurements of PCT may be valuable in predicting the severity of acute pancreatitis and the risk of developing infected pancreatic necrosis. (Surgery 2009;146:72-81.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available