Back to all available

Visceral adipose tissue and acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

emergency-and-critical-care
evidence-based-medicine
gastroenterology-and-hepatology

Abstract

Background. Visceral adipose tissue (VAT) contributes to the severity of acute pancreatitis (AP) through systemic inflammation and metabolic dysregulation, but its predictive value remains unclear.

Method. Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases until April 9, 2025. Study quality was appraised via the NIH scale. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata 15.0.

Result. The meta-analysis comprised 13 articles in total with 2917 patients, and the overall quality of the included articles was high. The meta-analysis illustrated high VAT content in patients with moderately severe AP (MSAP) (SMD=0.64, 95%CI: 00.18,1.10) and patients with severe AP (SAP) (SMD=0.85, 95% CI: 0.17,1.52) than that of patients with mild AP (MAP). VAT content in patients with MSAP and SAP was not statistically different (SMD = 0.36, 95% CI: -0.03, 0.75). VAT was an independent risk factor for non-MAP (OR = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.07, 3.00) with moderate predictive power (AUC = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.63, 0.85).

Conclusion. VAT is an independent risk factor for non-MAP, with moderate predictive power comparable to that of SIRS and APACHE II. It may serve as a potential reference for future precision prediction tools. Meanwhile, patients with MSAP and SAP have higher VAT than those with MAP, providing clinical insight for early severity assessment and guiding subsequent treatment decisions.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].