Exploring definitions of graft pancreatitis following pancreas transplantation: A scoping review

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q2 IMMUNOLOGY
Stefano Partelli , Valentina Andreasi , Valentina Tomajer , Domenico Tamburrino , Rossana Caldara , Paolo Rigotti , Davide Catarinella , Lorenzo Piemonti , Massimo Falconi
{"title":"Exploring definitions of graft pancreatitis following pancreas transplantation: A scoping review","authors":"Stefano Partelli ,&nbsp;Valentina Andreasi ,&nbsp;Valentina Tomajer ,&nbsp;Domenico Tamburrino ,&nbsp;Rossana Caldara ,&nbsp;Paolo Rigotti ,&nbsp;Davide Catarinella ,&nbsp;Lorenzo Piemonti ,&nbsp;Massimo Falconi","doi":"10.1016/j.trre.2024.100861","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Despite the clinical relevance of graft pancreatitis (GP) after pancreas transplantation (PT), a universally accepted definition is lacking. Aim of this scoping review was to provide a systematic overview of GP definitions reported in the literature. MEDLINE, Web of Science and Embase were searched for relevant articles. Prospective/retrospective studies reporting a GP definition were included. The included series (<em>n</em> = 20) used four main criteria (clinical, biochemical, radiological and pathological) to define GP. Overall, 9 studies defined GP using a single criterion (<em>n</em> = 8 biochemical, <em>n</em> = 1 pathological), 7 series using two criteria (<em>n</em> = 3 clinical + biochemical, <em>n</em> = 3 biochemical + radiological, <em>n</em> = 1 clinical + radiological), 3 series using three criteria (<em>n</em> = 3 clinical + biochemical + radiological), and 1 series using four criteria. Overall, 20 definitions of GP were found. GP rate was reported by 19 series and ranged between 0% and 87%. This scoping review confirms that a universally accepted definition of GP is absent, and there is no consensus on the criteria on which it should be grounded. Future research should focus on developing a validated definition of GP.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48973,"journal":{"name":"Transplantation Reviews","volume":"38 4","pages":"Article 100861"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transplantation Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955470X24000442","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite the clinical relevance of graft pancreatitis (GP) after pancreas transplantation (PT), a universally accepted definition is lacking. Aim of this scoping review was to provide a systematic overview of GP definitions reported in the literature. MEDLINE, Web of Science and Embase were searched for relevant articles. Prospective/retrospective studies reporting a GP definition were included. The included series (n = 20) used four main criteria (clinical, biochemical, radiological and pathological) to define GP. Overall, 9 studies defined GP using a single criterion (n = 8 biochemical, n = 1 pathological), 7 series using two criteria (n = 3 clinical + biochemical, n = 3 biochemical + radiological, n = 1 clinical + radiological), 3 series using three criteria (n = 3 clinical + biochemical + radiological), and 1 series using four criteria. Overall, 20 definitions of GP were found. GP rate was reported by 19 series and ranged between 0% and 87%. This scoping review confirms that a universally accepted definition of GP is absent, and there is no consensus on the criteria on which it should be grounded. Future research should focus on developing a validated definition of GP.

探索胰腺移植后移植物胰腺炎的定义:范围界定综述
尽管胰腺移植(PT)后的移植物胰腺炎(GP)与临床息息相关,但却缺乏一个普遍接受的定义。本综述旨在对文献中报道的 GP 定义进行系统性概述。检索了 MEDLINE、Web of Science 和 Embase 中的相关文章。纳入了报告 GP 定义的前瞻性/回顾性研究。纳入的系列研究(n = 20)采用了四种主要标准(临床、生化、放射和病理)来定义 GP。总体而言,9 项研究使用单一标准(n = 8 项生化标准,n = 1 项病理标准)定义 GP,7 项系列研究使用两项标准(n = 3 项临床标准 + 生化标准,n = 3 项生化标准 + 放射标准,n = 1 项临床标准 + 放射标准),3 项系列研究使用三项标准(n = 3 项临床标准 + 生化标准 + 放射标准),1 项系列研究使用四项标准。总体而言,共发现了 20 种 GP 定义。19个系列报告了GP率,介于0%和87%之间。此次范围界定审查证实,目前还没有一个普遍接受的 GP 定义,对于 GP 定义所应依据的标准也没有达成共识。未来的研究应侧重于制定 GP 的有效定义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Transplantation Reviews
Transplantation Reviews IMMUNOLOGY-TRANSPLANTATION
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
40
审稿时长
29 days
期刊介绍: Transplantation Reviews contains state-of-the-art review articles on both clinical and experimental transplantation. The journal features invited articles by authorities in immunology, transplantation medicine and surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信