Post-operative day 3 Procalcitonin predicts post-operative infectious complications in pancreatic surgery – A systemic review and updated meta-analysis ========================================================================================================================================================= * Bhavin Vasavada * Hardik Patel ## Abstract **Aim of study** Aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate post-operative procalcitonin as a marker to predict post-operative infectious complications after pancreatic surgeries. **Material and Methods** Systemic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and to identify studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of Procalcitonin (PCT) as a predictor for detecting infectious complications on postoperative days (POD) 3 and 5 following pancreatic surgery. A meta-analysis was performed using random effect model and pooled predictive parameters for POD 3 and 5 were derived. Geometric means were calculated for PCT cut offs. **Results** 6 studies included day 3 PCT analysis, 2 studies included both day 3 and day 5 analysis. Total data of 471 patients were derived. 161 patients developed infectious complications. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, pooled area under curve, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive and negative like hood ratio of day 3 PCT were 74%,79%,0.8453, 11.03,3.17 and 0.31 respectively. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive and negative like hood ratio of day 5 PCT were 83%,70%,12.91,2.91 and 0.25 respectively. Geometric means for PCT cut off for day 3 and 5 were 0.80 and 0.43. **Conclusion** Postoperative procalcitonin particularly day 3 procalcitonin levels predict post-operative infectious complications following pancreatic surgeries. Keywords * Meta-analysis * Procalcitonin * pancreatic surgery * pancreaticoduodenectomy * Infectious complications ## Introduction Pancreatic surgeries (Pancreaticoduodenectomy/ distal pancreatectomy) are the main treatments for various benign and malignant disease of pancreas, duodenum, and ampullary region. [1]. Pancreatic surgeries are still associated with very high morbidity and mortality. [2]. Majority of complications following pancreatic surgeries are infectious complications including pancreatic leaks and fistula. [3]. These complications can affect outcomes and also increase cost for pancreatic surgeries. [4]. C reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin are suggested as inflammatory markers for diagnosing infective complications following colorectal and abdominal surgeries. [5-10]. CRP is not considered as a specific marker for infection, as it can rise in any inflammatory condition. [11]. Procalcitonin is now emerging as a useful and specific marker for sepsis and guide to antibiotic treatment. [12]. It is suggested as a useful marker in predicting infectious complications for colorectal surgeries. [5]. How every there are very limited literature available studying post-operative procalcitonin as a marker for post-operative infectious complications following pancreatic surgeries. ### Aim of Study Aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate post-operative procalcitonin as a marker to predict post-operative infectious complications after pancreatic surgeries. ## Materials and Methods ### Data collection Medline (PubMed), Embase and Scopus were searched with key words like “procalcitonin” AND “pancreatic surgery”, “pancreaticoduodenectomy”, “distal pancreatectomy”, “post-operative complications”, “infective complication”, “pancreatic leak”, “pancreatic fistula”, “anastomotic leak”. Studies after. Year 2006 were searched. Anastomotic leak and pancreatic fistula were considered as infectious complications and were included in search strategy. ### Definition of post-operative infectious complications Infectious complications were defined as any complications like intraabdominal abscess, pancreatic leak, pancreatic fistula, wound complications, urinary tract infection, post-operative pneumonia or adult respiratory distress syndrome. Screening was done by two reviewers (BV and HP) independently at the title, abstract, and full text stages. Any disagreements were discussed between the reviewers before a final decision was made. ### Study selection #### Inclusion criteria * Randomized control trials * Observational cohort study * Studies which included post-operative procalcitonin level between postoperative day 3 to 5. * Studies where subject underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy or distal pancreatectomy * Studies which included patients with age 18 and above. * Studies which evaluated post-operative complications. #### Exclusion criteria * Studies where full text articles could not be obtained. * Studies which included only post-operative day 1 or pre-operative procalcitonin level #### Data extraction Information on study characteristics including patient population, study duration, follow-up period, index test, and reference standard were extracted from each study. The primary outcome, i.e., diagnostic performance of PCT to detect infectious complications reported as sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (LR+), and negative likelihood ratio (LR−) at POD 3 and 5, was collected. As anastomotic leakage or pancreatic fistula were considered a subset of infectious complications and expected to account for most cases of IAI in elective colorectal surgery, it was used as the surrogate outcome of interest during data extraction in studies which did not specifically report infectious complications. Two-by-two contingency tables were constructed to calculate true-positives (TP), false-positives (FP), false-negatives (FN), and true-negatives (TN) using the reported Se, Sp, PPV or NPV. The calculated TP, FP, TN, and FN were pooled into the meta-analysis. ### Risk of bias assessment The revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool developed by the Cochrane Collaboration was used to assess for the risk of bias and applicability of each study. [13]. The tool consists of four key domains, i.e., patient selection, index test, reference standard, and patient flow through the study and timing of tests. Two reviewers (BV and HP) assessed the study quality independently. In case of disagreement, the judgment was discussed among themselves before a final decision. publication bias was assessed with the Deeks test. ### Statistical analysis The statistical analysis was performed according to the Preferred Report Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. [14]. The pooled prevalence of infectious complications with corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was calculated using random effect model. The pooled PCT cut-off value was derived using geometric mean of the reported PCT cut-off values. [15]. Using a random effect model, the pooled Se, Sp, LR+, LR−, and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) with corresponding 95% CI were calculated. Symmetrical summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves were also generated. The area under the curve (AUC) and Q* index (the point on the SROC curve where Se and Sp were equal) were calculated, respectively.[16]. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Higgins I2 test, with values of 25, 50, and 75% indicating low, moderate, and high degrees of heterogeneity, respectively. [17]. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were attempted whenever feasible. The statistical analysis was performed using Meta-DiSc 1.4 (Hospital Ramon y Cajal and Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain) and revman 5.4. ## RESULTS ### DATA EXTRACTION “PUBMED”; “EMBASE”; “SCOPUS” were searched with keywords described as in METHODS. A PRISMA flow chart illustrating the selection of articles for this systematic review is shown in Fig. 1. 127 records identified after above search strategy. (119 from databases, 8 from references of extracted articles). 80 article remained after duplicated removed and screened thoroughly. 69 articles excluded which met exclusion criteria. From the remaining articles 3 excluded as full details were not available. 2 articles excluded as details regarding day 3 and day 5 procalcitonin was not available. Finally 6 articles included in qualitative and quantitative analysis.[18-23]. ![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/F1) Figure 1: PRISMA FLOW CHART. ### Study characteristics and quality assessment The characteristics of the 6 studies included in the meta-analysis is described in TABLE 1. All studies included patients who either underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy or distal pancreatectomy. Total 471 patients underwent pancreatic surgery, out of that 161 patients’ developed infectious complications. 452 patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy and 19 underwent distal pancreatectomy. All the studies included analysis of Post-operative day 3 procalcitonin analysis. Only 2 studies mentioned post-operative day 5 analysis. We took day 3 and day 5 procalcitonin level as in literature search we could find only one study who analysed day 1 procalcitonin level and also there is risk of high false positive rate due to surgical stress.[24]. Four included studies had infectious complications as their primary outcomes, while two [22,23] had pancreatic leak as its primary outcome. View this table: [TABLE: 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/T1) TABLE: 1. STUDY CHARACTERRISTICS. ### Risk of Bias The results of the quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 are shown in Figure. 2. Over all there were minimum and unclear concern regarding patient selection in Lida et al. [20] as they excluded surgery where other organs apart from pancreas also needed to be resected and also unclear concern regarding patients flow and timings study by Bianchi et al. [18]. Mintziras et al [23] did not include other complications apart from pancreatic fistula in sensitivity and specificity outcomes. ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/F2/graphic-4.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/F2/graphic-4) ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/F2/graphic-5.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/F2/graphic-5) FIGURE 2: METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY SUMMARY AND GRAPH. ### Predictive value of Procalcitonin for Infectious complications following Pancreatic surgeries Total 161 patients developed infectious complications out of 471 patients. Overall pooled infectious complication rate after pancreatic surgery is around 34%. A meta-analysis of the predictive value of PCT for infectious complications was performed for POD 3, and 5. The results are summarized in Table 2. ## PROCALCITONIN (PCT) AT POST OPERATIVE DAY 3 All 6 included studies reported day 3 PCT. Geometric mean PCT cut off for predicting infectious complications at day 3 was 0.80 with 95% C.I. 0.58-1.02. Pooled sensitivity of day 3 PCT was 74% with 95% C.I. 66 to 81%. [FIGURE 3]. Pooled specificity was 79% with 95% C.I. 74 to 84%. [figure 4]. SROC curve was prepared which showed pooled Area Under Curve (AUC) 0.8453 with standard error (S.E.) of AUC 0.0394 with Q*= 0.7768 with S.E. (Q)=0.0370. [figure 5]. Positive like hood ratio of day 3 PCT was 3.17 with 95% C.I. 2.28 to 4.40 and negative like hood ratio was 0.31 with 95% C.I. was 0.17-0.56. Pooled diagnostic odds ratio of day 3 PCT in predicting infectious complications was 11.03 with 95% C.I. 4.35-27.96. [Figure 6].Heterogeneity analysis shown with each figure. ![FIGURE 3:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/F3.medium.gif) [FIGURE 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/F3) FIGURE 3: FOREST PLOT OF SENSITIVITY OF DAY 3 PROCALCITONIN IN PREDICTING INFECTIVE COMPLICATIONS. ![FIGURE 4:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/F4.medium.gif) [FIGURE 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/F4) FIGURE 4: FOREST PLOT OF SPECIFICITY OF DAY 3 PROCALCITONIN IN PREDICTING INFECTIVE COMPLICATIONS. ![FIGURE 5:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/F5.medium.gif) [FIGURE 5:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/F5) FIGURE 5: SROC CURVE FOR DAY 3 PROCALCITONIN. ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/F6/graphic-9.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/F6/graphic-9) ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/F6/graphic-10.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/F6/graphic-10) FIGURE 6: (a) FOREST PLOT FOR POSITIVE LIKE HOOD RATIO (b) FOREST PLOT FOR NEGATIVE LIKEHOOD RATIO. (c) FOREST PLOT DOR. ## PROCALCITONIN (PCT) AT POST OPERATIVE DAY 5 Only 2 studies out of 5 carried out sensitivity and specificity analysis of day 5 PCT. Geometric mean PCT cut off for predicting infectious complications at day 5 was 0.43 with 95% C.I. 0.20-0.65. Pooled sensitivity of day 5 PCT was 83% with 95% C.I. 67 to 93%. Pooled specificity was 70% with 95% C.I. 58 to 80%. [FIGURE 7]. Positive like hood ratio of day 5 PCT was 2.91 with 95% C.I. 2.00 to 4.24 and negative like hood ratio was 0.25 with 95% C.I. was 0.09-0.70. Pooled diagnostic odds ratio of day 5 PCT in predicting infectious complications was 12.91 with 95% C.I. 3.81-43.7. [Figure 8].SROC analysis was not possible as only 2 studies were included however ROC plane with coordinates shown in Figure 9. Heterogeneity analysis shown with each figure. ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/F7/graphic-11.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/F7/graphic-11) ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/F7/graphic-12.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/F7/graphic-12) FIGURE 7. (a) FOREST PLOT FOR SENSITIVITY FOR DAY 5 PCT (b) FOREST PLOT FOR SPECIFICITY FOR DAY 5 PCT. ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/F8/graphic-13.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/F8/graphic-13) ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/F8/graphic-14.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/F8/graphic-14) FIGURE 8. (a) FOREST PLOT FOR DOR FOR PCT DAY 5. (b) FOREST PLOT FOR POSITIVE LIKEHOOD RATIO FOR PCT DAY 5 (c) FOREST PLOT FOR NEGATIVE LIKEHOOD RATIO FOR PCT DAY 5 ![FIGURE 9.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/F9.medium.gif) [FIGURE 9.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/F9) FIGURE 9. ROC FOR PCT DAY 5. ## DISCUSSION In our meta-analysis we have shown that post-operative PCT is a good indicator to predict post-operative infectious complications after pancreatic surgeries. Tan et al. [5] and cousin et al. [25] had done similar meta-analysis showing use of PCT as a predictor for infectious complications following colorectal surgeries. However, to our knowledge this is the first meta-analysis showing use fullness of post-operative PCT levels in predicting infectious complications following pancreatic surgeries. Survival Sepsis Guidelines 2016.[26] suggests use of PCT as a marker for diagnosing sepsis as well as marker for de-escalation of antibiotics and its use in management of sepsis is gaining popularity now. We decided to use PCT levels at day 3 and day 5 as evidences suggests that PCT can be falsely elevated in first 2 post-operative days. [27,28,29]. Many studies also recommend use of C-reactive Protein.(CRP) as a marker of infections in colorectal and pancreatic surgeries [30,31,32]. However, majority of studies showed that highest sensitivity and specificity of CRP in predicting infectious complications is at day 5 which may be too late particularly in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery or ERAS era and also as per survival sepsis guidelines PCT levels can also help in de-escalations of post-operative antibiotics. In our study we have shown that day 3 PCT level can predict post-operative infectious complications with high sensitivity and specificity. Pooled Area Under Curve of day 3 procalcitonin level was 0.8453, pooled sensitivity 74%,pooled specificity 79%, Diagnostic Odds ratio 11.03, positive like hood ratio 3.17 and negative like hood ratio 0.31 which suggest day 3 Procalcitonin is a very good predictive test for post-operative infectious complications. Youden Index was 0.53 which also confirms above findings.[33]. Sensitivity, specificity, Diagnostic Odds ratio, positive and negative like hood ratio of day 5 procalcitonin levels were 83%, 70%, 12.91,2.91 and 0.25 with Youden index 0.53. However, only two studies evaluated day 5 PCT levels so more evidence are needed to confirm above findings. There are certain limitations of our analysis. As, limited number of studies available we need more studies and meta-analysis to confirm our findings. Heterogeneity was moderate in some analysis which can be due to differencs in methodology and study design. Another limitation is majority of studies included pancreaticoduodenectomies only so to confirm these findings in distal pancreatectomies including laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies we need more data. However this is one of the early meta-analysis which confirms day 3 PCT level can predict infectious complications in pancreatic surgeries. In, Conclusion procalcitonin is an important marker particularly postoperative day 3 pct level can predict infectious complications after pancreatic duodenectomy. ## Data Availability data will be made available on demand View this table: [Table2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/23/2020.09.21.20198994/T2) ## Footnotes * Conflict of interests: none * Funding disclosure: none. * Received September 21, 2020. * Revision received September 21, 2020. * Accepted September 23, 2020. * © 2020, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International), CC BY-NC 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.Fu S, Shen S, Li S, Hu W, Hua Y, Kuang M, et al. Riskf actors and outcomes of postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatico-duodenectomy: an audit of 532 consecutive cases. BMC Surgery, 2015. 15–34. 2. 2.Krautz C, Nimptsch U, Weber GF, Mansky T, Grützmann R. Effect of Hospital Volume on In-hospital Morbidity and Mortality Following Pancreatic Surgery in Germany. Ann Surg. 2018;267(3):411–417. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000002248 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/SLA.0000000000002248&link_type=DOI) 3. 3.Barreto SG, Singh A, Perwaiz A, et al. Perioperative antimicrobial therapy in preventing infectious complications following pancreatoduodenectomy. Indian J Med Res. 2017;146(4):514–519. doi:10.4103/ijmr.IJMR\_784\_15 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access\_num=10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_784_15&link_type=DOI) 4. 4.Paniccia A, Hosokawa P, Henderson W, Schulick RD, Edil BH, Mccarter MD, et al. Characteristics of 10-Year Survivors of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. JAMA Surg, 2015. 80045: p1–10. 5. 5.Tan WJ, Ng WQ, Sultana R, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of serum procalcitonin levels to predict intra-abdominal infections after colorectal surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2018;33(2):171–180. doi:10.1007/s00384-017-2956-8 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00384-017-2956-8&link_type=DOI) 6. 6.Spoto S, Valeriani E, Caputo D, et al. The role of procalcitonin in the diagnosis of bacterial infection after major abdominal surgery: Advantage from daily measurement. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(3):e9496. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000009496 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/MD.0000000000009496&link_type=DOI) 7. 7.Welsch T, MuOller SA, Ulrich A, Kischlat A. C-reactive protein as early predictor for infectious postoperative complications in rectal surgery. Surgery, 2007: p1499–507. 8. 8.Facy O, Binquet C, Masson D, Fournel I, Rat P, Ortega-deballon P. Diagnostic Accuracy of Inflammatory Markers As Early Predictors of Infection After Elective Colorectal Surgery-Results From the IMACORS Study. Ann Surg, 2015. p1–6. 9. 9.Lagoutte N, Facy O, Ravoire A, Chalumeau C, Jonval L, Rat P, et al. C-reactive protein and procalcitonin for the early detection of anastomotic leakage after elective colorectal surgery : Pilot study in 100 patients. J. Visc. Surg, 2012. 149: p345–9 10. 10.Warschkow R, Tarantino I, Schmied BM, Steffen T. Diagnostic study and meta-analysis of C-reactive protein as a predictor of post-operative inflammatory complications after gastroesophageal cancer surgery. Langhenbecks Arch Surg, 2012. p727–36. 11. 11.Oberhofer D. Comparison of C-reactive protein and procalcitonin as predictors of postoperative infectious complications after elective colorectal surgery. CMJ, 2012. p612–9. 12. 12.Rowland T, Hilliard H, Barlow G. Procalcitonin: potential role in diagnosis and management of sepsis. Adv Clin Chem. 2015;68:71–86. doi:10.1016/bs.acc.2014.11.005 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/bs.acc.2014.11.005&link_type=DOI) 13. 13.Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, Leeflang MM, Sterne JA, Bossuyt PM, Group Q (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155(8):529–536. [https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009](https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009) [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1059/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22007046&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F09%2F23%2F2020.09.21.20198994.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000296066300018&link_type=ISI) 14. 14.Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62(10):e1–34. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006) [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19631507&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F09%2F23%2F2020.09.21.20198994.atom) 15. 15.Freeman MF, John W (1950) Tukey. BTransformations related to the angular and the square root.^ the. Ann Math Stat 21(4):607–611. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2236611](http://www.jstor.org/stable/2236611). [https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177729756](https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177729756) [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1214/aoms/1177729756&link_type=DOI) 16. 16.1. Deeks JJ BP, 2. Gatsonis C Macaskill P GC, Deeks JJ, Harbord RM, Takwoingi Y. Chapter, 10: Analysing and presenting results. In: Deeks JJ BP, Gatsonis C (editors), Cochrane, Cochrane HfSRoDTAVT, Collaboration Afhscohsco 17. 17.Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327(7414):557–560. [https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557](https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557) [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIzMjcvNzQxNC81NTciO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMC8wOS8yMy8yMDIwLjA5LjIxLjIwMTk4OTk0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 18. 18.Bianchi RA, Haedo AS, Romero MC. Papel de la determinación de procalcitonina plasmática en el seguimiento postoperatorio de la duodenopancreatectomía cefálica. Cir Esp 2006;79:356–360 [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16768999&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F09%2F23%2F2020.09.21.20198994.atom) 19. 19.Lenschow C, Hummel R, Lindner K, et al. Procalcitonin--a Marker for Anastomotic Insufficiency after Pancreatoduodenectomy?. Clin Lab. 2016;62(1-2):209–217. doi:10.7754/clin.lab.2015.150703 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7754/clin.lab.2015.150703&link_type=DOI) 20. 20.Iida H, Maehira H, Mori H, Tani M. Serum procalcitonin as a predictor of infectious complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy: review of the literature and our experience. Surg Today. 2020;50(2):87–96. doi:10.1007/s00595-019-01811-y [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00595-019-01811-y&link_type=DOI) 21. 21.Giardino A, Spolverato G, Regi P, et al. C-Reactive Protein and Procalcitonin as Predictors of Postoperative Inflammatory Complications After Pancreatic Surgery. J Gastrointest Surg. 2016;20(8):1482–1492. doi:10.1007/s11605-016-3171-6 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s11605-016-3171-6&link_type=DOI) 22. 22.Zhou Q, Xia Y, Lei Z. The predictive value of procalcitonin for postoperative early pancreatic fistula. BMC Surg. 2020;20(1):90. Published 2020 May 6. doi:10.1186/s12893-020-00755-2. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12893-020-00755-2&link_type=DOI) 23. 23.Mintziras I, Maurer E, Kanngiesser V, Bartsch DK. C-reactive protein and drain amylase accurately predict clinically relevant pancreatic fistula after partial pancreaticoduodenectomy. Int J Surg. 2020;76:53–58. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.02.025. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.02.025&link_type=DOI) 24. 24.Mansukhani V, Desai G, Shah R, Jagannath P. The role of preoperative C-reactive protein and procalcitonin as predictors of post-pancreaticoduodenectomy infective complications: A prospective observational study. Indian J Gastroenterol. 2017;36(4):289–295. doi:10.1007/s12664-017-0770-4. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s12664-017-0770-4&link_type=DOI) 25. 25.Cousin F, Ortega-Deballon P, Bourredjem A, Doussot A, Giaccaglia V, Fournel I. Diagnostic Accuracy of Procalcitonin and C-reactive Protein for the Early Diagnosis of Intra-abdominal Infection After Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2016;264(2):252-256.doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000001545. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/SLA.0000000000001545&link_type=DOI) 26. 26.Rhodes, Andrew MB BS, MD(Res) (Co-chair)1.; Evans, Laura E. MD, MSc, FCCM (Co-chair)2.; Alhazzani, Waleed MD, MSc, FRCPC (methodology chair)3.; Levy, Mitchell M. MD, MCCM4.; Antonelli, Massimo MD5.; Ferrer, Ricard MD, PhD6. et al. Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016, Critical Care Medicine: March 2017 - Volume 45 - Issue 3 - p 486–552 doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002255. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/CCM.0000000000002255&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28098591&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F09%2F23%2F2020.09.21.20198994.atom) 27. 27.Giaccaglia V, Salvi PF, Antonelli MS, Nigri G, Pirozzi F,Casagranda B, Giacca M, Corcione F, de Manzini N, Balducci G, Ramacciato G (2016) Procalcitonin reveals early dehiscence incolorectal surgery: the PREDICS study. Ann Surg 263(5):967–972. [https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001365](https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001365). 28. 28.Garcia-Granero A, Frasson M, Flor-Lorente B, Blanco F, Puga R,Carratala A, Garcia-Granero E (2013) Procalcitonin and C reactive protein as early predictors of anastomotic leak in colorectal surgery:a prospective observational study. Dis Colon Rectum 56(4):475–483. [https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0b013e31826ce825](https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0b013e31826ce825). 29. 29.Giaccaglia V, Salvi PF, Cunsolo GV, Sparagna A, Antonelli MS, Nigri G, Balducci G, Ziparo V (2014) Procalcitonin, as an early biomarker of colorectal anastomotic leak, facilitates enhanced recovery after surgery. J Crit Care 29(4):528–532. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.03.036](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.03.036). 30. 30.Singh PP, Zeng IS, Srinivasa S, Lemanu DP, Connolly AB, Hill AG (2014) Systematic review and meta-analysis of use of serum C reactive protein levels to predict anastomotic leak after colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 101(4):339–346. [https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9354](https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9354) [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/bjs.9354&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24311257&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F09%2F23%2F2020.09.21.20198994.atom) 31. 31.Warschkow R, Beutner U, Steffen T, Muller SA, Schmied BM, Guller U, Tarantino I (2012) Safe and early discharge after colorectal surgery due to C-reactive protein: a diagnostic meta-analysis of 1832 patients. Ann Surg 256(2):245–250. [https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31825b60f0](https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31825b60f0). [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22735714&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F09%2F23%2F2020.09.21.20198994.atom) 32. 32.Smits FJ, Molenaar IQ, Besselink MG, et al. Early recognition of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula: a systematic review. HPB (Oxford). 2020;22(1):1–11. doi:10.1016/j.hpb.2019.07.005 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.hpb.2019.07.005&link_type=DOI) 33. 33.Šimundić AM. Measures of Diagnostic Accuracy: Basic Definitions. EJIFCC. 2009;19(4):203–211. Published 2009 Jan 20. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27683318&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F09%2F23%2F2020.09.21.20198994.atom)