Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22361128›Full record

ArticleInteractive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2012

Accuracy of two scoring systems for risk stratification in thoracic surgery.

Anupama Barua, Sumana D Handagala, Laura Socci, Biplab Barua, Munib Malik, Natalie Johnstone, Antonio E Martin-Ucar

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Anupama BaruaDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Nottingham University Hospital NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Sumana D Handagala
Laura Socci
Biplab Barua
Munib Malik
Natalie Johnstone
Antonio E Martin-Ucar

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Models, StatisticalAdultAgedAged, 80 and overEnglandFemaleHospital MortalityHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SelectionPneumonectomyPredictive Value of TestsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID22361128
PMCPMC3735851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.