ArticleEuropean journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery2014
Comparison of three contemporary risk scores for mortality following elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.
Article in European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [The DIGG risk score : A risk predictive model of perioperative mortality after elective treatment of intact abdominal aortic aneurysms in the DIGG register].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
OBJECTIVE/
backgroundA number of contemporary risk prediction models for mortality following elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair have been developed. Before a model is used either in clinical practice or to risk-adjust surgical outcome data it is important that its performance is assessed in external validation studies.
methodsThe British Aneurysm Repair (BAR) score, Medicare, and Vascular Governance North West (VGNW) models were validated using an independent prospectively collected sample of multicentre clinical audit data. Consecutive, data on 1,124 patients undergoing elective AAA repair at 17 hospitals in the north-west of England and Wales between April 2011 and March 2013 were analysed. The outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Model calibration (observed to expected ratio with chi-square test, calibration plots, calibration intercept and slope) and discrimination (area under receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]) were assessed in the overall cohort and procedural subgroups.
resultsThe mean age of the population was 74.4 years (SD 7.7); 193 (17.2%) patients were women and the majority of patients (759, 67.5%) underwent endovascular aneurysm repair. All three models demonstrated good calibration in the overall cohort and procedural subgroups. Overall discrimination was excellent for the BAR score (AUC 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-0.89), and acceptable for the Medicare and VGNW models, with AUCs of 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.86) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.65-0.84) respectively. Only the BAR score demonstrated good discrimination in procedural subgroups.
conclusionAll three models demonstrated good calibration and discrimination for the prediction of in-hospital mortality following elective AAA repair and are potentially useful. The BAR score has a number of advantages, which include being developed on the most contemporaneous data, excellent overall discrimination, and good performance in procedural subgroups. Regular model validations and recalibration will be essential.
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.