Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26615537›Full record

ArticleBioMedicine2015

Assessing the risk: Scoring systems for outcome prediction in emergency laparotomies.

Deb Sanjay Nag

Registry-linked trialOpen access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioMedicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05639920 (Validation of Emergency Surgery Score), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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.

NCT05639920 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Validation of Emergency Surgery Score (ESS) as Outcome Prediction Score in Egyptian Patients Undergoing Emergency Laparotomy

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorAssiut UniversityRan2023 to 2024Enrolled138ConditionsEmergenciesArmsScoreing
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Validity of P-POSSUM in adult cancer surgery (PACS).Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
    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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Deb Sanjay NagDepartment of Anaesthesiology & Critical Care, Tata Main Hospital, 831001, Jamshedpur, India. debsanjay@gmail.com.
Tata Main Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Emergency laparotomy is the commonest emergency surgical procedure in most hospitals and includes over 400 diverse surgical procedures. Despite the evolution of medicine and surgical practices, the mortality in patients needing emergency laparotomy remains abnormally high. Although surgical risk assessment first started with the ASA Physical Status score in 1941, efforts to find an ideal scoring system that accurately estimates the risk of mortality, continues till today. While many scoring systems have been developed, no single scoring system has been validated across multiple centers and geographical locations. While some scoring systems can predict the risk merely based upon preoperative findings and parameters, some rely on intra-operative assessment and histopathology reports to accurately stratify the risk of mortality. Although most scoring systems can potentially be used to compare risk-adjusted mortality across hospitals and amongst surgeons, only those which are based on preoperative findings can be used for risk prognostication and identify high-risk patients before surgery for an aggressive treatment. The recognition of the fact, that in the absence of outcome data in these patients, it would be impossible to evaluate the impact of quality improvement initiatives on risk-adjusted mortality, hospital groups and surgical societies have got together and started to pool data and analyze it. Appropriate scoring systems for emergency laparotomies would help in risk prognostication, risk-adjusted audit and assess the impact of quality improvement initiative in patient care across hospitals. Large multi-centric studies across varied geographic locations and surgical practices need to assess and validate the ideal and most apt scoring system for emergency laparotomies. While APACHE-II and P-POSSUM continue to be the most commonly used scoring system in emergency laparotomies,studies need to compare them in their ability to predict mortality and explore if either has a higher sensitivity and specificity than the other.

Indexed as

EmergencyLaparotomyMortalityRisk assessmentScoring methods

Identifiers

PMID26615537
PMCPMC4662940
OpenAlexW2274535545

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.