Clinical Classification and Severity Scoring Systems in Chronic Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is characterised by pain, functional deficits, nutritional and mechanical complications. Frequently managed in out-patient settings, the clinical course is unpredictable and requires multi-disciplinary care. There remains substantial variation in management. In contrast to acute pancreatitis, there are no globally accepted classification or severity scores to predict the disease course or compare interventions. We conducted a systematic review to determine the scope and clinical use of existing scoring systems. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A systematic search was developed with a medical librarian using the Embase, Medline and Cochrane databases. Original articles and conference abstracts describing an original or modified classification or scoring system in CP that stratified patients into clinical and/or severity categories were included. To assess clinical application/validation, studies using all or part of a score as a stratification tool to measure another parameter or outcome were selected. Studies reporting on diagnosis or aetiology only were excluded. Four authors performed the search in independent pairs and conflicts were resolved by a fifth author using Covidence^TM systematic review software. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Following screening 6,652 titles and 235 full-text reviews, 48 papers were analysed. Eleven described original scores and 6 described modifications of published scores. Many were comprehensive but limited in capturing the full spectrum of disease. In 31 studies, a score was used to categorise patients to compare or correlate various outcome measures. Exocrine and endocrine dysfunction and pain were included in 6, 5, and 4 scoring systems, respectively. No score included other nutrition parameters, such as bone health, malnutrition, or nutrient deficiency. Only one score has been objectively validated prospectively and independently for monitoring clinical progression and prognosis, but this had been applied to an in-patient population. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Available systems and scores do not reflect recent advances and guidelines in CP and are not commonly used. A practical clinical classification and scoring system, validated prospectively for prognostication would be useful for the meaningful analysis in observational and interventional studies in CP.