Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25937046›Full record

ArticleObesity surgery2015

Risk Stratification Models: How Well do They Predict Adverse Outcomes in a Large Dutch Bariatric Cohort?

Noëlle Geubbels, L Maurits de Brauw, Yair I Z Acherman, Arnold W J M van de Laar, Sjoerd C Bruin

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Obesity surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Noëlle GeubbelsDepartment of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, Slotervaart Hospital, Louwesweg 6, 1066 EC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. ngeubbels@gmail.com.
L Maurits de BrauwDepartment of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, Slotervaart Hospital, Louwesweg 6, 1066 EC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. maurits.debrauw@slz.nl.
Yair I Z AchermanDepartment of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, Slotervaart Hospital, Louwesweg 6, 1066 EC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. yair.acherman@slz.nl.
Arnold W J M van de LaarDepartment of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, Slotervaart Hospital, Louwesweg 6, 1066 EC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. arnoldvandelaar@slz.nl.
Sjoerd C BruinDepartment of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, Slotervaart Hospital, Louwesweg 6, 1066 EC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. sjoerd.bruin@slz.nl.
Slotervaartziekenhuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisk prediction models are useful tools for informing patients undergoing bariatric surgery about their risk for complications and correcting outcome reports. The aim of this study is to externally validate risk models assessing complications after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) surgery.

methodsAll 740 patients who underwent a primary LRYGB between December 2007 and July 2012 were included in the validation cohort. PubMed was systematically searched for risk prediction models. Eight risk models were selected for validation. We classified our complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Predefined criteria of a good model were a non-significant Hosmer and Lemeshow test, Nagelkerke R (2) ≥ 0.10, and c-statistic ≥0.7.

resultsThere were 85 (7.8 %) grade 1, 54 (7.3 %) grade 2, 5 (0.7 %) grade 3a, 14 (1.9 %) grade 3b, and 14 (1.9 %) grade 4a complications in our validation cohort. Only one model predicted adverse events satisfactorily. This model consisted of one patient-related factor (age) and four surgeon- or center related factors (conversion to open surgery, intraoperative events, the need for additional procedures during LRYGB and the learning curve of the center).

conclusionsThe overall majority of the included risk models are unsuitable for risk prediction. Only one model with an emphasis on surgeon- and center-related factors instead of patient-related factors predicted adverse outcome correctly in our external validation cohort. These findings support the establishment of specialty centers and warn benchmark data institutions not to correct bariatric outcome data by any other patient-related factor than age.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAdultAgedConversion to Open SurgeryFemaleGastric BypassHumansLaparoscopyLearning CurveMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsObesity, MorbidPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentAdverse eventsBariatric surgeryBenchmark dataComplicationsGastric bypassMorbid obesityOutcome reportingRisk factorsRisk stratificationValidation

Identifiers

PMID25937046
OpenAlexW2031096248

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.