The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A comparative study of methods for the prediction of severity of attacks of acute pancreatitis
Abstract
Diagnostic peritoneal lavage was carried out in 79 patients with acute pancreatitis, at a mean time of 7 h after admission to hospital. The presence of more than 10 ml of free peritoneal fluid, brown-coloured free fluid or mid-straw-coloured lavage fluid was the criterion used for the prediction of a severe attack by lavage. Prior to lavage the attack was assessed as mild or severe by the clinician and reassessed by him at 24 and 48 h. All attacks were finally classified as mild or severe by means of a simple clinical grading scheme. There were 61 mild and 18 severe attacks (including 4 deaths). Initial clinical assessment correctly predicted only 39 per cent of the severe attacks compared with a 72 per cent success rate for diagnostic lavage. All the mild attacks were correctly predicted by clinical assessment but lavage was wrong in 3 out of 61 cases (95 per cent success rate). By 48 h after admission clinical assessment was comparable to systems using multiple criteria in its predictive value, success rates being 83 per cent and 82 per cent respectively for prediction of severe attacks. We did not find either the presence of methaemalbumin in the serum or the presence of hypocalcaemia to be of additional value. Diagnostic peritoneal lavage was the most accurate early guide to severity, and correctly predicted all patients who developed shock or died.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Early Treatment of Acute Biliary Pancreatitis by Endoscopic Papillotomy
Fan, S.-T., Lai, E., Mok, F., Lo, C.-M., Zheng, S.-S., & Wong, J. (1993) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199301283280402 · Cited by 782
APACHE-II SCORE FOR ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING OF ACUTE PANCREATITIS
Larvin, M., & Mcmahon, M. (1989) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(89)90381-4 · Cited by 730
Self-citationDervenis, C., Johnson, C. D., Bassi, C., Bradley, E., Imrie, C. W., McMahon, M. J., & Modlin, I. (1999) · International journal of pancreatology · doi:10.1007/bf02925968 · Cited by 451
Self-citationA critical evaluation of laboratory tests in acute pancreatitis
Yadav, D. (2002) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9270(02)04122-9 · Cited by 375
Block, S., Maier, W., Bittner, R., Büchler, M., Malfertheiner, P., & Beger, H. G. (1986) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.27.9.1035 · Cited by 173
Metadata
- Authors
- McMahon, M. J., Playforth, M. J., & Pickford, I. R.
- Venue
- Journal of British Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1980-01-01
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 22-25
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W1984688551
- Cited by
- 184
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A comparative study of methods for the prediction of severity of attacks of acute pancreatitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bjs.1800670107
- The paper
- McMahon, M. J., Playforth, M. J., & Pickford, I. R. (1980). A comparative study of methods for the prediction of severity of attacks of acute pancreatitis. Journal of British Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800670107
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.