SynthesisJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2014
Individual risk modelling for esophagectomy: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prediction of Morbidity and Mortality After Esophagectomy: A Systematic Review.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Combined and intraoperative risk modelling for oesophagectomy: A systematic review.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023Article
- Preoperative risk modelling for oesophagectomy: A systematic review.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023Article
- Safety and benefits of major hepatectomy with extrahepatic bile duct resection in older perihilar cholangiocarcinoma patients.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA number of models have been applied to predict outcomes from esophagectomy. This systematic review aimed to compare their clinical credibility, methodological quality and performance.
methodsA systematic review of the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases was performed in October 2012. Model and study quality were appraised using the framework of Minne et al.
resultsTwenty studies were included in total; these were heterogeneous, retrospective and conducted over a number of years; all models were generated via logistic regression. Overall mortality was high, and consequently not representative of current practice. Clinical credibility and methodological quality were variable, with frequent failure to perform internal validation and variable presentation of calibration and discrimination metrics. P-POSSUM demonstrated the best calibration and discrimination for predicting mortality. Other than the Southampton score (which has yet to be externally validated) and the Amsterdam score, no studies had utility in predicting complications.
conclusionWhilst a number of models have been developed, adapted or trialled, due to numerous limitations, larger and more contemporary studies are required to develop and validate models further. The role of alternative techniques such as decision tree analysis and artificial neural networks is not known.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24760219What 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.