Open Access

Scoring systems for outcome prediction in patients with perforated peptic ulcer

Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine201321:25

https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-21-25

Received: 21 December 2012

Accepted: 4 April 2013

Published: 10 April 2013

Abstract

Background

Patients with perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) often present with acute, severe illness that carries a high risk for morbidity and mortality. Mortality ranges from 3-40% and several prognostic scoring systems have been suggested. The aim of this study was to review the available scoring systems for PPU patients, and to assert if there is evidence to prefer one to the other.

Material and methods

We searched PubMed for the mesh terms “perforated peptic ulcer”, “scoring systems”, “risk factors”, ”outcome prediction”, “mortality”, ”morbidity” and the combinations of these terms. In addition to relevant scores introduced in the past (e.g. Boey score), we included recent studies published between January 2000 and December 2012) that reported on scoring systems for prediction of morbidity and mortality in PPU patients.

Results

A total of ten different scoring systems used to predict outcome in PPU patients were identified; the Boey score, the Hacettepe score, the Jabalpur score the peptic ulcer perforation (PULP) score, the ASA score, the Charlson comorbidity index, the sepsis score, the Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI), the Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II), the simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II), the Mortality probability models II (MPM II), the Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity physical sub-score (POSSUM-phys score). Only four of the scores were specifically constructed for PPU patients. In five studies the accuracy of outcome prediction of different scoring systems was evaluated by receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC) analysis, and the corresponding area under the curve (AUC) among studies compared. Considerable variation in performance both between different scores and between different studies was found, with the lowest and highest AUC reported between 0.63 and 0.98, respectively.

Conclusion

While the Boey score and the ASA score are most commonly used to predict outcome for PPU patients, considerable variations in accuracy for outcome prediction were shown. Other scoring systems are hampered by a lack of validation or by their complexity that precludes routine clinical use. While the PULP score seems promising it needs external validation before widespread use.

Keywords

Perforated peptic ulcerScoring systemsOutcome predictionMortalityMorbidity

Introduction

Peptic ulcer disease is associated with potentially life- threatening complications, including bleeding, perforation, penetration and obstruction. Perforation is the second most frequent complication after bleeding[1]. While the clinical picture of patients with perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) sometimes can be blurred by vague symptoms, most PPU patients present with overt symptoms and signs of peritonitis and eventually sepsis. Variations in the clinical presentation as well as delay in diagnosis and work-up at admission to the hospital, may potentially cause a worsening of symptoms and a deterioration of the clinical condition, with a detrimental outcome. Still, a high risk for morbidity (20-50%) and mortality (3-40%) is encountered in surgically treated PPU patients[27]. About every fifth patient with PPU present with signs of sepsis and by a careful preoperative assessment of the patients´ severity grade, appropriate management can be offered to achieve an optimal outcome of disease[8, 9]. Currently, the ASA score and the Boey score are the most frequently used prognostic scoring systems in patients with PPU[1014]. Yet, the ASA score is a general surgical risk score not intended for PPU patients in particular. Moreover, the external validation of the Boey score is uncertain.

The aim of this study was to review the available scoring systems used for outcome prediction in PPU patients, and to evaluate if any scoring system has advantages and predictive power to be preferred in clinical practice on this group of patients.

Material and methods

We searched the Pub Med database by using the mesh terms; “perforated peptic ulcer”, “scoring systems for morbidity and mortality”, “risk factors”, ”outcome prediction” and the combinations of these terms. In addition we did a manual search from identified articles of relevance. We evaluated studies on PPU patients and related outcomes (morbidity and mortality), published in the English language between 2000 and 2012, and recognized the scores or combinations of scores that have been used in these studies. A few seminal articles published before 2000 were also taken into consideration. The study data were compared by a descriptive approach.

Definitions

Receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC) is a statistical method that measures diagnostic accuracy of a test and offers graphical display of the true positives versus the false positives. Area under the curve (AUC) is used to measure the “size” of the curve of prediction composed by the graphic display between the ‘sensitivity’ and the ‘1–specificity’ relationship. AUC can range from 0.5 to 1.0 and a result of 1.0 indicates a perfect discriminatory ability[15]. An AUC value > 0.8 is considered good, a range between 0.60-0.80 is considered as moderate, and an AUC value < 0.60 is regarded as poor[16]. The ROC curve is calculated by using all possible score values as a potential cut-off value for a given outcome prediction (such as mortality), and displays the optimal cut-off point when sensitivity and specificity reaches an optimum for both values, by which the point on the ROC curved line is closest to the upper left corner on the curve.

Results

Ten different scoring systems (Table1) used for prediction of outcomes for PPU patients were identified, including the Boey score[14], the Hacettepe score[17] the Jabalpur score[18], the Peptic Ulcer Perforation (PULP) score[19], the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score[20], the Charlson comorbidity index[21], the sepsis score[22], the Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI)[23], the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II)[24], the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II)[25], the Mortality Probability Models II (MPM II)[26] and the Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity physical sub-score (POSSUM-phys score)[27]. In five studies, comparison of various scoring systems for outcome prediction was done by ROC-analyses with reporting on the area under the curve (AUC)[10, 16, 18, 19, 22]. A few studies presented specificity and sensitivity, relative risks (RR) and odds ratios (OR), while most studies reported on performance by calculation of the chi square test.
Table 1

Scoring systems used for outcome prediction in perforated peptic ulcer

Scoring systems (reference)

Year of report

Target population

Outcome measured

Parameters evaluated

Boey[14]

1987

Patients with PPU

30 day mortality

Presentation ≥ or <24 hours; presence of preoperative shock; level of comorbidity.

Hacettepe score[17]

1992

Patients with PPU

30 day mortality

Presence of serious medical illness, acute renal failure, white blood cell count, male gender

Jabalpur score[18]

2003

Patients with PPU

30 day mortality

Time from perforation to operation, mean systolic blood pressure preoperatively, heart rate, serum creatinine, age, comorbidity

PULP[19]

2012

Patients with PPU

30 day mortality

Presentation ≥ or <24 hours; presence of preoperative shock; ASA score, presence of aids, active malignancy, liver failure; serum creatinine > 130 mmol/l

ASA[20]

1941

General surgical populations

Preoperative risk assessment for surgical patients

Degree of comorbidity and present systemic disease

Charlson comorbidity index[21]

1987

General surgical populations

Prediction of 1 year mortality for hospitalized patients

Weighting of different comorbidities

Mannheim peritonitis index[23]

2002

General peritonitis

Peroperative prediction of outcome in patients with peritonitis

Age, gender, organ failure, duration of peritonitis, site of perforation, diffuse peritonitis, level of exudate

APACHE II[24]

1985

Critically ill patients

Prediction of outcome for ICU patients

Aids, metastatic cancer, liver failure, immunosuppression, chronic renal insufficiency, haemotologic malignancy, lymphoma, leukemia, age, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, respiratory rate, temperature, GCS, WBC, creatinine, blood gas, potassium, sodium, patient origin

SAPS II[25]

1993

Critically ill patients

Prediction of outcome for ICU patients

Aids, metastatic cancer, haemotologic malignancy, age, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, temperature, GCS, urine output, WBC, bilirubin, urea, Potassium, sodium, Patient origin

MPM II[26]

1993

Critically ill patients

Prediction of outcome for ICU patients

Metastatic cancer, liver failure, chronic renal insufficiency, leukemia, age, acute renal failure, arrythmias, heart rate, GI bleeding, GCS, intracranial mass effect, cerebrovascular accident, cpr prior to admission, mechanical ventilation

POSSUM[37]

1991

Surgical patients

Prediction of outcome (mortality) for surgical patients

Respiratory history; cardiac signs; age; heart rate; systolic blood pressure; ecg; GCS; operative severity; multiple procedures, total blood loss, peritoneal soiling, finding of peroperative malignancy; elective or acute surgery, WBC, Hb, urea, potassium, sodium

Peptic ulcer perforation score (PULP score).

American society of anesthesiologists (ASA) score.

Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II).

Simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II).

Mortality probability models II (MPM II).

Physiological and operative severity score for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity (POSSUM) score.

Glasgow coma scale (GCS).

White blood cell count (WBC).

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GI bleeding).

Hemoglobin (Hb).

Scoring systems aimed at prediction of outcome in PPU

The Boey score was the first score directly aimed at mortality prediction for perforated peptic ulcer[14]. The original work by Boey et al stated that delay of surgery after onset of symptoms for more than 48 hours, shock upon admission and a high degree of comorbidity, were associated with a 100% mortality when all factors where present. Eventually, the delay of surgery was adjusted to 24 hours, and the scoring system was validated in a cohort from Hong Kong[14, 28].

The Hacettepe score was also developed for PPU patients and comprises four factors (Table1)[17]. This study evaluated 173 patients from Turkey and found the Hacettepe score to be equivalent to the Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI), with a sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 94% for mortality prediction. The sensitivity for the MPI in this study was 75% and the specificity 96%. Eventually, this score was used in a study from India, as elaborated below[17, 18].

The Jabalpur score was based on a study on 140 patients from India, with a mean age of 39 years. This score takes into account six factors, which are all assessable preoperatively. Both morbidity and mortality were predicted accurately, based on a high AUC value (Table2)[18].
Table 2

Scoring accuracy of mortality prediction in PPU patients

Scoring systems evaluated

Mishraet al[18]

Lohsiriwat et al[10]

Koc et al[16]

Møller et al[19]

Buck et al[22]

Mortality rate

Mortality rate

Mortality rate

Mortality rate

Mortality rate

10.7%

9.0%

10.6%

27.0%

17.0%

 

Area under the ROC Curve (AUC)

ASA

 

0.91

 

0.78

0.73

Boey

0.85

0.86

 

0.70

0.63

Apache II

  

0.87

 

0.76

SAPS II

  

0.86

  

MPM II

  

0.98

  

Hacateppe score

0.72

    

Jabalpur score

0.92

    

MPI

 

0.84

   

Modified Apache II

0.84

    

Modified MPI

0.85

    

PULP

   

0.83

 

Sepsis score

    

0.69

AUC denotes area under the curve . An AUC value > 0.8 is considered good, a range between 0.60-0.80 is considered as moderate, and an AUC value < 0.60 is regarded as poor.

ASA, American society of anesthesiologists (ASA) score.

APACHE II denotes Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II.

Modified APACHE II, APACHE II calculated when no available blood gas.

SAPS, Simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II).

MPM, Mortality probability models II (MPM II).

MPI denotes Mannheim peritonitis index.

Modified MPI, MPI calculated when no available blood gas.

Most recently, the Peptic Ulcer Perforation (PULP) score has been introduced as a scoring system for perforated peptic ulcer. This score is based on a nationwide study from Denmark and included 2668 PPU patients with a median age of 70.9 years, where 55% was female. Seven factors are taken into account, with weighted points applicable for each factor, with a maximum sum of 18 points being the highest possible. The optimal cut-off point was found to be 7 points, which gives a positive predictive value (PPV) of 25% for those with 0-7 points, and a PPV of 38% for the group with 8 or more points[19]. The PULP study also compared different systems elaborated below.

General scores of comorbidity

The ASA score introduced in 1941 and intended for preoperative assessment of patients’ fitness level, is the oldest available scoring system[20, 29]. ASA score is frequently reported together with other descriptive patient data including age, gender, and various physiologic parameters, but this classification has no specific role in outcome prediction of patients with PPU per se.

The Charlson comorbidity index was developed to stratify comorbidity into different risk groups by assigning scores to various illnesses[21]. The Charlson index is a widely used scoring system and considers 19 conditions deemed clinically important, and they are each given 1 to 6 points due to high or low morbidity grade. Cerebrovascular disease is given 1 point, severe liver disease 3 points and metastatic cancer and AIDS are given 6 points. The Charlson index was initially suggested for prediction of long-term mortality. However, later studies have found it to be useful also in prediction of in-hospital morbidity and mortality[30, 31]. One study also used the Charlson comorbidity index to predict outcome in PPU patients. A highly significant association between a medium or high Charlson score and 30-day mortality was observed, with an odds ratio (OR) of 4.17 for high score (3 or more points on the Charlson score) and an OR of 3.99 for medium score (1-2 points on the Charlson score)[32]. However, identification of any other PPU studies to confirm the obtained results by use of this particular score was not possible.

The Sepsis criteria are easy to calculate preoperatively and the presence of sepsis is fulfilled if two or more of the following parameters are present, when infection is confirmed or highly likely; temperature >38°C or <36°C respiratory rate > 20 per minute or PCO2 < 4.3kPa, heart rate > 90 per minute, White cell count > 12.0×109 or < 4.0×109[33].

Obviously this system is widely used in several aspects of medicine, but has also been applied to predict outcome in a PPU cohort, as elaborated below[22].

The Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI) consists of seven factors that are more directly related to the operative findings. As the name implies, the design was specifically intended for surgical patients presenting with peritonitis. It comprises both preoperative and perioperative conditions, and has been found to predict morbidity well, but less so in prediction of mortality for PPU patients[10, 23].

Intensive care unit (ICU) systems

The Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) score is a common score globally and the most used ICU scoring system in the USA. It comprises twelve different physiological measurements, age and previous health status, and was originally designed to categorize ICU patients according to risk. The system gives an increasing amount of points for extreme values (high or low), between 0 (36.0°C -38.4°C) and 4 (≥41°C and ≤29.9°C). Originally this score was found to perform well amongst ICU patients[24]. Later, it was also applied to predict outcome in PPU patients. One study from the USA[34] reported on zero mortality in PPU patients with scores less than 11 points, and a 35% mortality rate in patients with at least 11 points, which indicates this as a useful cut-off. Others have tried different cut-off values without finding these to be more useful. However the APACHE II score is a rather complex system needing mathematical equations to calculate and a minimum of 24 hours to assess all factors. This may pose implications and concerns for its clinical usefulness and availability. Nevertheless, APACHE II has been shown to predict outcome well also for PPU patients[16, 24, 34].

The Simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II) is designed for predicting outcome in ICU patients and consists of 17 variables. It was developed in the 80s and a revised version was introduced in 1993[25]. The SAPS II system is frequently used for outcome prediction in critically ill patients in Europe and Scandinavia, and has many similarities with the APACHE II system[25]. Both systems are rather complex, with a number of factors incorporated in the calculations, including physiologic parameters. The SAPS II system predicts mortality and morbidity well, but also seems more suitable for ICU patients. Nevertheless, this score performed well for outcome prediction of PPU patients[16].

The Mortality probability models II (MPM II) was designed for prediction of outcome in ICU patients. MPM II assesses the presence or not of 14 different clinical factors, several related to systemic perfusion[26]. The MPM II predicted mortality better then both SAPS II and APACHE II in one study[16]. However this study was rather small and skewed with basically younger male patients, which is in contrast to current PPU cohorts. While some studies from Asia and Africa have presented similar patient characteristics[35, 36], recent studies from Scandinavia and Northern Europe have presented data with a 1:1 male/female ratio and median age close to 70 years[19, 27]. Moreover, the MPM II is a rather complex system, thus suboptimal for a pre-operative calculation in the clinical context PPU patients present.

The Physiological and Operative Severity Score for Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity (POSSUM score) consists of 12 factors based on the patients physiological state and 6 factors regarding operative conditions. These factors are then entered into two mathematical equations for risk assessment[37]. The POSSUM score was designed for outcome prediction in ICU patients, and is widely used in the UK. The original POSSUM score tended to overestimate mortality for low risk groups. The Portsmouth-POSSUM (P-POSSUM) was therefore designed to adjust for this[38]. Prediction of mortality in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy was improved by the P-POSSUM score, compared to the original POSSUM score[38, 39]. The POSSUM-phys score, which is the physiologic subscore, comprises only the 12 physiologic parameters, which can be assessed preoperatively. Only one study was found that applied POSSUM-phys to PPU patients. In this study 261 PPU patients with a mean age of 67 years were evaluated and the POSSUM-phys score predicted both mortality and morbidity[27]. The POSSUM-phys score, in contrast to the POSSUM score, can be assessed pre-operatively. However, with regard to PPU patients, we have not encountered any studies comparing POSSUM-phys score with other scoring systems.

Isolated risk factors for morbidity and mortality in PPU

In a large systematic review of pre-operative prognostic factors in PPU patients, Møller et al identified 50 prognostic studies evaluating overall 37 prognostic factors in a population total of 29,782 patients[40]. They deemed the overall methodological quality to be acceptable, yet only two-thirds of the studies provided confounder-adjusted estimates in the multivariable analyses. Very few of the included studies investigated all, or the majority of, the prognostic factors included in the review. Some of the markers were only investigated in a few studies, and overall, the diversity and spread across the studies were considerable for most markers.

Nonetheless, adjusted pooled relative risks showed evidence for an association between mortality and older age, comorbidity, and the use of medications such as Non Steroid Anti Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs), steroids and immunosuppressives[40]. Further predictive factors associated with a poor prognosis included shock upon admission, pre-operative metabolic acidosis, tachycardia, elevated respiratory rate, acute renal failure, low serum albumin level, high ASA score, and a pre-operative time-delay >24 hours. Notably, several of the scoring systems proposed (Table1) include one or several of these factors, but usually not all.

Studies comparing several scoring systems for outcome prediction in PPU patients

Five studies were identified where AUC values were compared between different scoring systems. Mortality prediction varied from 0.63 to 0.98 for the different systems evaluated in these studies and these are presented in Table2[10, 16, 18, 19, 22].

In another study from Chicago, including 436 PPU patients, the Boey score was compared to the APACHE II score[41]. The Boey score predicted mortality, but failed to predict morbidity. Moreover, the Boey score predicted conversion from laparoscopy to laparotomy, with a conversion encountered in 81.8% of Boey 2 score patients. The APACHE II was found to predict both morbidity and mortality. However, no AUC or relative risks were calculated and of such it is not directly comparable to other studies[41].

A report from Finland in the early 2000s included 280 PPU patients[23] and MPI predicted postoperative morbidity better than both the ASA and the Boey score. But the Boey score predicted mortality better than both the ASA score and the MPI. The authors used likelihood ratios to discriminate, but no AUC testing was done in this study.

Accuracy of morbidity prediction

We identified only two studies that reported AUC values for morbidity prediction[10, 22]. Lohsiriwat et al defined morbidity as some form of complication and found AUC values of 0.80 for both the ASA and the Boey score, while MPI performed poorest with an AUC of 0.74[10]. Buck et al defined septic shock and ICU admission as secondary endpoints and found following AUC values; for septic shock the AUC values were 0.67 for the ASA score, 0.72 for the Boey score, 0.74 for the sepsis score and 0.78 for the APACHE II score. For ICU admission the AUC values were 0.69 for the ASA score, 0.64 for the Boey score, 0.72 for APACHE II score and 0.64 for the sepsis score. Overall the APACHE II performed best for prediction of the two chosen secondary endpoints.

An overview of scoring systems, with mortality figures, published in various studies since the year 2000, are presented in Table3[4, 7, 10, 16, 18, 19, 23, 27],[32, 35, 36, 4259].
Table 3

PPU studies reporting on 30-day mortality

Study (reference)

Country

Study period

Number of patients

Mortality rate, n (%)

Age, mean

Score system used

Arici et al[50]

Italy

1991-2004

147

14%

52 (median)

Boey

Arveen et al[36]

India

2006-2008

328

9%

43

ASA

Bae et al[7]

Korea

2006-2007

4258

3%

74% younger than 60 years of age

No score system

Bas et al[51]

Belgium

1998-2004

97

5%

39

No score system

Bin-Taleb et al[52]

Yemen

1997-2006

156

4%

39

No score system

Chalya et al[56]

Tanzania

2006-2011

84

11%

28 (median)

No score system

Christensen et al[2]

Denmark

1991-2003

2061

25%

61% older than 65 years of age

No score system

Dakubo et al[35]

Ghana

1998-2002

326

11%

41

No score system

Egberts et al[27]

Germany

1993-2005

261

24%

67 (median)

Possum-phys

Forsmo et al[46]

Norway

1992-2003

102

22%

71 (median)

ASA

Hemmer et al[43]

The Netherlands

2000-2005

272

16%

62

ASA

Kamani et al[57]

Iran

1996-2005

56

5%

50

No score system

Kim et al[49]

Korea

2005-2010

142

6%

57

ASA

Koc et al[16]

Turkey

2005-2006

75

11%

44 (median)

APACHE II, APACHE III SAPS II, MPM II

Kocer et al[47]

Turkey

2001-2004

269

9%

43

ASA

Kujath[48]

Germany

1996-2000

102

14%

69

ASA

Larkin et al[45]

Ireland

1998-2007

76

20%

60

ASA

Lohsiriwat et al[10]

Thailand

2001-2006

152

9%

52

Boey, ASA, MPI

Makele et al[23]

Finland

1979-2000

280

14%

58

Boey, ASA, MPI

Mishra et al[18]

India

1999-2001

140

11%

39

Apache II

MPI

Jabalpur

Montalvo-Jave et al[53]

Mexico

2006-2008

30

17%

57

No score system

Muslu et al[58]

Turkey

1998-2005

126

4%

51

No score system

Møller et al[19]

Denmark

2003-2009

2668

27%

71 (median)

PULP, ASA, Boey

Nasio/Saidi[59]

Kenya

2005-2006

44

9%

35

No score system

Noguiera et al[44]

Portugal

1990-2000

210

10%

53 (median)

No score system

Rajesh et al[55]

India

2006-2011

180

13%

<50 years

Apache II

Boey

Subedi et al[54]

Nepal

2002-2004

145

7%

46

No score system

Taha et al[32]

Scotland

1997-2006

270

19%

64 (median)

Charlson comorbidity index

Thorsen et al[4]

Norway

2003-2009

114

16%

67 (median)

ASA

Boey

Table sorted alphabetically by study author’s name.

Mortality rates and age are rounded up/down.

American society of anesthesiologists (ASA) score.

Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II).

Simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II).

Mortality probability models II (MPM II).

Mannheim peritonitis index (MPI).

Peptic ulcer perforation (PULP) score.

Physiological and operative severity score for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity physical sub-score (POSSUM-phys score).

Discussion

In this review we identified four scoring systems that have been developed specifically for prediction of outcome in PPU patients. However, several other general scores have been applied on this particular group of patients, although these scores have a non-specific design for PPU patients. We also identified several factors that make direct comparison of results and pooling of patient populations for assessment of outcome prediction difficult or impossible. Among these obstacles are time and sociodemographic differences and differences in score design and complexity. Some factors of these barriers are further discussed below.

Implications of age on score performance

The Boey score was developed from a study population with a median age of 51 years[14]. However, the age of PPU patients in recent studies from Europe have been considerably higher[19, 27, 43, 45], and age has been shown to be an isolated predictor for mortality in PPU patients[4, 19, 40, 43]. Also, in the identified studies on mortality of PPU patients published the last decade, the 30 day mortality was at least 14% when age was mean or median > 60 years[4, 19, 27, 32, 43, 45, 48], in contrast to a decreased mortality between 3% and 14% in patient series with a mean or median age of < 60 years[7, 10, 16, 23, 36, 44, 47]. Hence, the Boey risk score may not be as suitable for the older age groups as for the younger. As pointed out by others[22], there is also a weakness in its crudeness, including the definition of shock with a systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg in the original study by Boey. In contrast, shock is usually defined by a combination of systolic blood pressure ≤100 mm Hg and tachycardia, defined as a pulse ≥100 per minute[19, 43]. Thus, the Boey score may vary due to the definitions used. Nevertheless, several studies have found the Boey score to be a good predictor of mortality in PPU patients[10, 19, 23]. The Boey score was specifically designed for PPU patients, and while definitions are of some concern, the simplicity makes it very quick to calculate which is an advantage. Of note, the Boey score has not performed as well in predicting morbidity[10, 60, 61].

Differences in sociodemographic regions

The Hacettepe score has been applied in two different studies with varying results and not better than the other systems used. It evaluates four factors and should be feasible to assess. However, 77% of the patients were < 50 years of age and 94% were men. Similar PPU patient groups are found in other developing countries, but the patient demography is quite different in non-developing countries, with older age and minor differences between genders.

The Jabalpur score performed a high AUC score in the only study reporting it[18]. But the patient group was among the youngest with a mean age of 39 years with 98% males. Therefore, it seems more applicable in regions with similar demography. When these two systems were tested in cohorts in India and Turkey, the Jabalpur system performed superior to the Hacettepe score[17, 18].

The nationwide PULP study is the largest recent study evaluating outcome prediction for PPU patients. Hence the external validity may be stronger, at least for comparable, western populations with demography similar to Denmark. The PULP score incorporates both the ASA score and the Boey score and can be evaluated pre-operatively. Since it does incorporate both these systems, one would expect the PULP score to perform at least as well as the other systems on their own. Indeed, the PULP score did perform somewhat better, with slightly higher AUC values than both the ASA score and the Boey score in predicting morbidity and mortality[19]. However a validation of this system is needed.

Furthermore, the PPU systems found in the literature and presented in this review differ in many ways. The Boey score[14]was originally done on American patients in the early 80s, the Hacettepe score[17] on a Turkish population in the early 90s, the Jabalpur score[18] on an Indian population in the early 2000s and the PULP score[19] in Denmark in the late 2000. These studies differ in geography, mean age and decade presented, which means that further validation is recommended before any scoring system can be applied to a cohort different from the population of development.

Comparing AUC values

When comparing AUC values from ROC analyses from different studies, several limitations have to be considered. For one, different inclusion criteria and patient characteristics will potentially bias direct comparison of AUC values among studies. Hence, comparing ROC curve analysis and AUC values is best done on the same mix of patients[62]. A prediction model is made from fitting the data in a patient series by the means of logistic regression. Data included in such models may differ between studies, which may hamper comparison of AUC values of scoring systems from different studies.

Second, the number and the ratio of outcome events to the study population will influence the AUC accuracy and its precision. The PULP study included 2668 patients and with a mortality rate of 27% (n = 720 patients) as the evaluated outcome. Too few such outcome events in any given study will make logistic regression problematic and unreliable, with the confounding factors having a greater influence and thus a bias on the results. As a comparably large sample size, the PULP study may have higher power and reliability, than the other four studies comparing AUC values. However, the patient characteristics in the PULP cohort differ from the other studies, which may influence the external validity. Thus, this model may not necessarily work well for other cohorts, and should thus be tested externally.

Lastly, timing of collection of the score variables is another important issue to consider when a scoring system for outcome prediction should be chosen. The more information that is available, the better would the performance of the score be expected. Hence a post-operative score would likely perform better as compared to a pre-operative or a peri-operative scoring system.

Complexity of scores

The ASA score is in contrast to the ICU systems simple to calculate, and it has been shown in various studies to predict both morbidity and mortality in general surgical patients[1013, 19]. Even though the ASA score neither was designed for, nor solely functions as a PPU score, it is widely used in PPU studies evaluating outcomes[4, 10, 19]. The ASA score has been shown to predict mortality well in several groups of patients, included for PPU patients[10, 18, 19, 47]. The AUC values reported vary from 0.73 to 0.91, but the vast majority does not report AUC values or other parameters that make it possible to compare different studies. The main problem of the ASA score has been the inter-observer variability[63, 64].

The MPI is a more complex system and must be obtained during or after surgery, which is regarded challenging. However it has been shown to predict both morbidity and mortality, although to a varying degree. Only one study reported an AUC value for MPI (0.84), which is considered good[16], but both the ASA score and the Boey score performed better in this study[10].

Four ICU systems that were developed for outcome prediction of critically ill patients have been applied to PPU patients in one or more studies. In addition one study used the Charlson comorbidity index. But the complexity of these systems seems to limit the implementation in a general clinical setting. The APACHE II score is most frequently reported, but is still no common system used for PPU patients in general. They have all been shown to predict outcome for PPU patients, but to varying degree. And since only the fewest studies actually report on AUC values or other values that can be compared to others, data are sparse. MPM II performed the highest AUC value of all the scoring systems regarding mortality prediction with 0.98, which is nearly perfect. However, this study was small and skewed, with mostly younger male patients, with a low mortality rate. Hence, its validity to patients with a different age and demographic patterns is highly questionable.

The Sepsis score has an important status in emergency medicine and is easy and rapid to calculate. Early recognition of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and prompt goal directed therapy, including perioperative and postoperative, can be of paramount importance and may influence outcome[9, 33]. Probably, treatment delay in PPU patients, one of the factors in both the Boey score and the PULP score, is actually a surrogate marker for imminent sepsis. Also the presence of electrolyte disturbances, hypoalbuminemia, anemia, kidney failure, leukocytosis and shock can all be seen as part of the sepsis syndrome in a condition like perforated peptic ulcer. The sepsis score has also been found to predict outcome in PPU patients, but less so than most of the other scores evaluated[22].

Conclusions

While no scoring system was ideal and all were hampered by certain limitations, a few scores appeared easily applicable in clinical practice. The Boey score and the ASA score are most commonly applied in the current literature to predict outcomes for PPU patients, but both demonstrate variable accuracy. While the PULP score seems promising, a validation is pending before a general application can be recommended.

Abbreviations

PPU: 

Perforated peptic ulcer

ASA score: 

American society of anesthesiologists score

ROC: 

Receiver operating characteristics curve

AUC: 

Area under the curve

MPI: 

Mannheim peritonitis index

APACHE II: 

Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II

SAPS II: 

Simplified acute physiology score II

MPM II: 

Mortality probability models II

POSSUM- phys score: 

Physiological and operative severity score for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity phys score

OR: 

Odds ratio

ICU: 

Intensive care unit

NSAIDS: 

Non steroid anti inflammatory drugs

SIRS: 

Systemic inflammatory response syndrome.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Stavanger University Hospital
(2)
Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen

References

  1. Milosavljevic T, Kostic-Milosavljevic M, Jovanovic I, Krstic M: Complications of peptic ulcer disease. Dig Dis. 2011, 29 (5): 491-493. 10.1159/000331517.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Christensen S, Riis A, Norgaard M, Sørensen HT, Thomsen RW: Short-term mortality after perforated or bleeding peptic ulcer among elderly patients: a population-based cohort study. BMC Geriatr. 2007, 7: 8-10.1186/1471-2318-7-8.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Christiansen C, Christensen S, Riis A, Thomsen RW, Johnsen SP, Tonnesen E, Sorensen HT: Antipsychotic drugs and short-term mortality after peptic ulcer perforation: a population-based cohort study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2008, 28 (7): 895-902. 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03803.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Thorsen K, Glomsaker TB, von Meer A, Soreide K, Soreide JA: Trends in diagnosis and surgical management of patients with perforated peptic ulcer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2011, 15 (8): 1329-1335. 10.1007/s11605-011-1482-1.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertleff MJ, Lange JF: Perforated peptic ulcer disease: a review of history and treatment. Dig Surg. 2010, 27 (3): 161-169. 10.1159/000264653.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Lau JY, Sung J, Hill C, Henderson C, Howden CW, Metz DC: Systematic review of the epidemiology of complicated peptic ulcer disease: incidence, recurrence, risk factors and mortality. Digestion. 2011, 84 (2): 102-113. 10.1159/000323958.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bae S, Shim KN, Kim N, Kang JM, Kim DS, Kim KM, Cho YK, Jung SW: Incidence and short-term mortality from perforated peptic ulcer in korea: a population-based study. J Epidemiol. 2012, 22 (6): 508-516. 10.2188/jea.JE20120056.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Moller MH, Shah K, Bendix J, Jensen AG, Zimmermann-Nielsen E, Adamsen S, Moller AM: Risk factors in patients surgically treated for peptic ulcer perforation. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2009, 44 (2): 145-152. 10.1080/00365520802401261. 142 p following 152View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Moller MH, Adamsen S, Thomsen RW, Moller AM: Multicentre trial of a perioperative protocol to reduce mortality in patients with peptic ulcer perforation. Br J Surg. 2011, 98 (6): 802-810. 10.1002/bjs.7429.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Lohsiriwat V, Prapasrivorakul S, Lohsiriwat D: Perforated peptic ulcer: clinical presentation, surgical outcomes, and the accuracy of the Boey scoring system in predicting postoperative morbidity and mortality. World J Surg. 2009, 33 (1): 80-85. 10.1007/s00268-008-9796-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Pedersen T, Eliasen K, Ravnborg M, Viby-Mogensen J, Qvist J, Johansen SH, Henriksen E: Risk factors, complications and outcome in anaesthesia. A pilot study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1986, 3 (3): 225-239.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. McCulloch P, Ward J, Tekkis PP: Mortality and morbidity in gastro-oesophageal cancer surgery: initial results of ASCOT multicentre prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2003, 327 (7425): 1192-1197. 10.1136/bmj.327.7425.1192.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Arenal JJ, Bengoechea-Beeby M: Mortality associated with emergency abdominal surgery in the elderly. Can J Surg. 2003, 46 (2): 111-116.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Boey J, Choi SK, Poon A, Alagaratnam TT: Risk stratification in perforated duodenal ulcers. A prospective validation of predictive factors. Ann Surg. 1987, 205 (1): 22-26. 10.1097/00000658-198701000-00005.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Soreide K, Korner H, Soreide JA: Diagnostic accuracy and receiver-operating characteristics curve analysis in surgical research and decision making. Ann Surg. 2011, 253 (1): 27-34. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318204a892.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Koc M, Yoldas O, Kilic YA, Gocmen E, Ertan T, Dizen H, Tez M: Comparison and validation of scoring systems in a cohort of patients treated for perforated peptic ulcer. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2007, 392 (5): 581-585. 10.1007/s00423-007-0156-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Altaca G, Sayek I, Onat D, Cakmakci M, Kamiloglu S: Risk factors in perforated peptic ulcer disease: comparison of a new score system with the Mannheim Peritonitis Index. Eur J Surg. 1992, 158 (4): 217-221.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Mishra A, Sharma D, Raina VK: A simplified prognostic scoring system for peptic ulcer perforation in developing countries. Indian J Gastroenterol. 2003, 22 (2): 49-53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Moller MH, Engebjerg MC, Adamsen S, Bendix J, Thomsen RW: The peptic ulcer perforation (PULP) score: a predictor of mortality following peptic ulcer perforation.A cohort study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2012, 56 (5): 655-662. 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2011.02609.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Saklad M: Grading of patients for surgical procedures. Anesthesiology. 1941, 2: 281-284. 10.1097/00000542-194105000-00004.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR: A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987, 40 (5): 373-383. 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Buck DL, Vester-Andersen M, Moller MH: Accuracy of clinical prediction rules in peptic ulcer perforation: an observational study. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2012, 47 (1): 28-35. 10.3109/00365521.2011.639078.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Makela JT, Kiviniemi H, Ohtonen P, Laitinen SO: Factors that predict morbidity and mortality in patients with perforated peptic ulcers. Eur J Surg. 2002, 168 (8–9): 446-451.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE: APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med. 1985, 13 (10): 818-829. 10.1097/00003246-198510000-00009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Le Gall JR, Lemeshow S, Saulnier F: A new simplified acute physiology score (SAPS II) based on a european/north american multicenter study. JAMA. 1993, 270 (24): 2957-2963. 10.1001/jama.1993.03510240069035.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Lemeshow S, Teres D, Klar J, Avrunin JS, Gehlbach SH, Rapoport J: Mortality probability models (MPM II) based on an international cohort of intensive care unit patients. JAMA. 1993, 270 (20): 2478-2486. 10.1001/jama.1993.03510200084037.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Egberts JH, Summa B, Schulz U, Schafmayer C, Hinz S, Tepel J: Impact of preoperative physiological risk profile on postoperative morbidity and mortality after emergency operation of complicated peptic ulcer disease. World J Surg. 2007, 31 (7): 1449-1457. 10.1007/s00268-007-9061-z.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Boey J, Wong J, Ong GB: A prospective study of operative risk factors in perforated duodenal ulcers. Ann Surg. 1982, 195 (3): 265-269. 10.1097/00000658-198203000-00004.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Wolters U, Wolf T, Stutzer H, Schroder T: ASA classification and perioperative variables as predictors of postoperative outcome. Br J Anaesth. 1996, 77 (2): 217-222. 10.1093/bja/77.2.217.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Wang CY, Lin YS, Tzao C, Lee HC, Huang MH, Hsu WH, Hsu HS: Comparison of charlson comorbidity index and kaplan-feinstein index in patients with stage I lung cancer after surgical resection. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2007, 32 (6): 877-881. 10.1016/j.ejcts.2007.09.008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Ouellette JR, Small DG, Termuhlen PM: Evaluation of charlson-age comorbidity index as predictor of morbidity and mortality in patients with colorectal carcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg. 2004, 8 (8): 1061-1067. 10.1016/j.gassur.2004.09.045.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Taha AS, Angerson WJ, Prasad R, McCloskey C, Gilmour D, Morran CG: Clinical trial: the incidence and early mortality after peptic ulcer perforation, and the use of low-dose aspirin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2008, 28 (7): 878-885.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet JM, Bion J, Parker MM, Jaeschke R, Reinhart K, Angus DC, Brun-Buisson C, Beale R: Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008. Crit Care Med. 2008, 36 (1): 296-327. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000298158.12101.41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Schein M, Gecelter G, Freinkel Z, Gerding H: APACHE II in emergency operations for perforated ulcers. Am J Surg. 1990, 159 (3): 309-313. 10.1016/S0002-9610(05)81225-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Dakubo JC, Naaeder SB, Clegg-Lamptey JN: Gastro-duodenal peptic ulcer perforation. East Afr Med J. 2009, 86 (3): 100-109.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Arveen S, Jagdish S, Kadambari D: Perforated peptic ulcer in South India: an institutional perspective. World J Surg. 2009, 33 (8): 1600-1604. 10.1007/s00268-009-0056-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Copeland GP, Jones D, Walters M: POSSUM: a scoring system for surgical audit. Br J Surg. 1991, 78 (3): 355-360. 10.1002/bjs.1800780327.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Kumar P, Rodrigues GS: Comparison of POSSUM and P-POSSUM for risk-adjusted audit of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2009, 15 (1): 19-22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Mohil RS, Bhatnagar D, Bahadur L, Rajneesh , Dev DK, Magan M: POSSUM and P-POSSUM for risk-adjusted audit of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Br J Surg. 2004, 91 (4): 500-503. 10.1002/bjs.4465.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Moller MH, Adamsen S, Thomsen RW, Moller AM: Preoperative prognostic factors for mortality in peptic ulcer perforation: a systematic review. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2010, 45 (7–8): 785-805.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Lee FY, Leung KL, Lai BS, Ng SS, Dexter S, Lau WY: Predicting mortality and morbidity of patients operated on for perforated peptic ulcers. Arch Surg. 2001, 136 (1): 90-94. 10.1001/archsurg.136.1.90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Barut I, Tarhan OR, Cerci C, Karaguzel N, Akdeniz Y, Bulbul M: Prognostic factors of peptic ulcer perforation. Saudi Med J. 2005, 26 (8): 1255-1259.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Hemmer PH, de Schipper JS, van Etten B, Pierie JP, Bonenkamp JJ, de Graaf PW, Karsten TM: Results of surgery for perforated gastroduodenal ulcers in a Dutch population. Dig Surg. 2011, 28 (5–6): 360-366.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Noguiera C, Silva AS, Santos JN, Silva AG, Ferreira J, Matos E, Vilaca H: Perforated peptic ulcer: main factors of morbidity and mortality. World J Surg. 2003, 27 (7): 782-787. 10.1007/s00268-003-6645-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Larkin JO, Bourke MG, Muhammed A, Waldron R, Barry K, Eustace PW: Mortality in perforated duodenal ulcer depends upon pre-operative risk: a retrospective 10-year study. Ir J Med Sci. 2010, 179 (4): 545-549. 10.1007/s11845-010-0515-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Forsmo HM, Glomsaker T, Vandvik PO: Perforated peptic ulcer--a 12-year material. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2005, 125 (13): 1822-1824.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Kocer B, Surmeli S, Solak C, Unal B, Bozkurt B, Yildirim O, Dolapci M, Cengiz O: Factors affecting mortality and morbidity in patients with peptic ulcer perforation. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007, 22 (4): 565-570. 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2006.04500.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Kujath P, Schwandner O, Bruch HP: Morbidity and mortality of perforated peptic gastroduodenal ulcer following emergency surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2002, 387 (7–8): 298-302.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Kim JM, Jeong SH, Lee YJ, Park ST, Choi SK, Hong SC, Jung EJ, Ju YT, Jeong CY, Ha WS: Analysis of risk factors for postoperative morbidity in perforated peptic ulcer. Journal of gastric cancer. 2012, 12 (1): 26-35. 10.5230/jgc.2012.12.1.26.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Arici C, Mesci A, Dincer D, Dinckan A, Colak T: Analysis of risk factors predicting (affecting) mortality and morbidity of peptic ulcer perforations. Int Surg. 2007, 92 (3): 147-154.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Bas G, Eryilmaz R, Okan I, Sahin M: Risk factors of morbidity and mortality in patients with perforated peptic ulcer. Acta Chir Belg. 2008, 108 (4): 424-427.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Bin-Taleb AK, Razzaq RA, Al-Kathiri ZO: Management of perforated peptic ulcer in patients at a teaching hospital. Saudi Med J. 2008, 29 (2): 245-250.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Montalvo-Jave EE, Corres-Sillas O, Athie-Gutierrez C: Factors associated with postoperative complications and mortality in perforated peptic ulcer. Cir Cir. 2011, 79 (2): 141-148.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Subedi SK, Afaq A, Adhikary S, Niraula SR, Agrawal CS: Factors influencing mortality in perforated duodenal ulcer following emergency surgical repair. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc. 2007, 46 (165): 31-35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Rajesh V, Chandra SS, Smile SR: Risk factors predicting operative mortality in perforated peptic ulcer disease. Trop Gastroenterol. 2003, 24 (3): 148-150.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Chalya PL, Mabula JB, Koy M, McHembe MD, Jaka HM, Kabangila R, Chandika AB, Gilyoma JM: Clinical profile and outcome of surgical treatment of perforated peptic ulcers in Northwestern Tanzania: A tertiary hospital experience. World J Emerg Surg. 2011, 6: 31-10.1186/1749-7922-6-31.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Kamani F, Moghimi M, Marashi SA, Peyrovi H, Sheikhvatan M: Perforated peptic ulcer disease: mid-term outcome among Iranian population. Turk J Gastroenterol. 2010, 21 (2): 125-128.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. GkAKa MÜ, Ayşegül D: Mortality and morbidity risk factors in the surgery of peptic ulcer perforation. Cumhuriyet Med J. 2012, 34: 189-193. 10.7197/1305-0028.1080.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Nasio NA, Saidi H: Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease at Kenyatta National Hospital, Nairobi. East Cent Afr J Surg. 2009, 14: 13-17.Google Scholar
  60. Boey J, Wong J: Perforated duodenal ulcers. World J Surg. 1987, 11 (3): 319-324. 10.1007/BF01658109.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Lee FY, Leung KL, Lai PB, Lau JW: Selection of patients for laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg. 2001, 88 (1): 133-136. 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2001.01642.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Soreide K: Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis in diagnostic, prognostic and predictive biomarker research. J Clin Pathol. 2009, 62 (1): 1-5. 10.1136/jcp.2008.061010.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Owens WD, Felts JA, Spitznagel EL: ASA physical status classifications: a study of consistency of ratings. Anesthesiology. 1978, 49 (4): 239-243. 10.1097/00000542-197810000-00003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Grocott MP, Levett DZ, Matejowsky C, Emberton M, Mythen MG: ASA scores in the preoperative patient: feedback to clinicians can improve data quality. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007, 13 (2): 318-319. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00736.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Thorsen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.