ArticleInteractive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2012
Accuracy of two scoring systems for risk stratification in thoracic surgery.
Article in Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of risk prediction models for perioperative mortality after thoracic surgery.Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Thoracoscore: Does it predict mortality in the Indian scenario? - A retrospective study.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2022Article
- Thoracoscore and European Society Objective Score Fail to Predict Mortality in the UK.World journal of oncology · 2015Article
- Variations in the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway predict pulmonary complications.The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2012Article
- eComment. Re: Accuracy of two scoring systems for risk stratification in thoracic surgery.Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigate the suitability of the two existing risk stratification systems available for predicting mortality in a cohort of patients undergoing lung resection under a single surgeon. Data from the 290 consecutive patients who underwent pulmonary resection between January 2008 and January 2011 were extracted from a prospective clinical data base. In-hospital mortality risk scores are calculated for every patient by using Thoracoscore and ESOS.01 and were compared with actual in-hospital mortality. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to establish how well the systems rank for predicting patient mortality. Actual in-hospital mortality was 3.1% (n = 9). Thoracoscore and ESOS values (mean ± SEM) were 4.93 ± 0.32 and 4.08 ± 0.41, respectively. The area under the ROC curve values for ESOS and Thoracoscore were 0.8 and 0.6, respectively. ESOS was reasonably accurate at predicting the overall mortality (sensitivity 88% and specificity 67%), whereas Thoracoscore was a weaker predictor of mortality (sensitivity 67% and specificity 53%). The ESOS score had better predictive values in our patient population and might be easier to calculate. Because of their low specificity, the use of these scores should be limited to the assessment of outcomes of surgical cohorts, but they are not designed to predict risks for individual patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.