You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Commentaries
Acute pancreatitis reclassified
  1. John A Windsor,
  2. Maxim S Petrov
  1. Department of Surgery, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
  1. Correspondence to Professor John A Windsor, Department of Surgery, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand; j.windsor{at}auckland.ac.nz

https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2012-303725

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Science is founded on observation and classification. The taxonomist's task to classify is both dependent and limited by what has been observed and is known. Progress in science is made by classifying seeming disorder, highlighting gaps and contradictions in knowledge and addressing them by experimentation. Classifications are stepping-stones, sign-posting current understanding, promoting hypotheses and enabling comparisons. Such is the iterative nature of science.

    Progress has been made in the management of acute pancreatitis, evidenced by a decreasing overall mortality rate. And even though our understanding of the pathophysiology is more complete, specific treatments for acute pancreatitis remain elusive and our classifications have been simplistic. For more than a century we have relied on a binary classification of acute pancreatitis severity.1 Patients had either mild or severe disease, and this approach was enshrined in the original Atlanta Classification 20 years ago. Classification has not kept pace with our understanding of this disease and has hindered studies of potential treatments.2 When misclassification error runs to a quarter or a third of those enrolled, it is little wonder that the clinical trials of potential treatments for acute pancreatitis have been described as a ‘litany of failure’. And maybe we have discarded certain treatments prematurely.2 But the …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors Both authors have made a substantial contribution to this commentary, as evidenced by the reference list. Both have been involved in drafting the article and revising it critically for important intellectual content and both have given final approval of the version to be published.

    • Competing interest None.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles