Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25711395›Full record

ArticleInternational orthopaedics2015

Inpatient mortality after orthopaedic surgery.

Mariano E Menendez, Valentin Neuhaus, David Ring

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International orthopaedics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Mortality in orthopedic patients: a retrospective review of 333 medical records.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mariano E MenendezDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Yawkey Center, Suite 2100, Boston, MA, 02114, USA, memenendez@partners.org.
Valentin Neuhaus
David Ring

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAdequate comorbidity risk adjustment is central for reliable outcome prediction and provider performance evaluation. The two most commonly employed risk-adjustment methods in orthopaedic surgery were not originally validated in this patient population. We sought (1) to develop a single numeric comorbidity score for predicting inpatient mortality in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery by combining and reweighting the conditions included in the Charlson and Elixhauser measures, and to compare its predictive performance to each of the separate component scores. We also (2) evaluated the new score separately for spine surgery, adult reconstruction, hip fracture, and musculoskeletal oncology admissions.

methodsData from the National Hospital Discharge Survey for the years 1990 through 2007 were obtained. A comorbidity score for predicting inpatient mortality was developed by combining conditions from the Charlson and Elixhauser measures. Weights were derived from a random sample of 80% of the cohort (n = 26,454,972), and the predictive ability of the new score was internally validated on the remaining 20% (n = 6,739,169). Performance of scores was assessed and compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) derived from multivariable logistic regression models.

resultsThe new combined comorbidity score (AUC = 0.858, 95% CI 0.856-0.859) performed 58% better than the Charlson score (AUC = 0.794, 95% CI 0.792-0.796) and 12% better than the Elixhauser score (AUC = 0.845, 95% CI 0.844-0.847). Of the seven conditions that received the highest weights in the new combined score, only three of them were included in both the Charlson and the Elixhauser indices. The new combined score achieved higher discriminatory power for all orthopaedic admission subgroups.

conclusionA single numeric comorbidity score combining conditions from the Charlson and Elixhauser models provided better discrimination of inpatient mortality than either of its constituent scores. Future research should test this score in other populations and data settings.

Indexed as

Hospital MortalityAdultAgedComorbidityFemaleHumansInpatientsLength of StayLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedOrthopedic ProceduresOrthopedicsPrognosisRetrospective StudiesRisk Adjustment

Identifiers

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.