Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26692059›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of ophthalmology2016

Predictive modeling of risk factors and complications of cataract surgery.

Gregory L Gaskin, Suzann Pershing, Tyler S Cole, Nigam H Shah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of ophthalmology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-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.

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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Adherence of studies involving artificial intelligence in the analysis of ophthalmology electronic medical records to AI-specific items from the CONSORT-AI guideline: a systematic review.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Are there sex-based disparities in cataract surgery?International journal of ophthalmology · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Natural Language Processing: from Bedside to Everywhere.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. The contribution of wet labs in the education of ophthalmologists.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gregory L GaskinStanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, Stanford University, Stanford, California - USA.
Suzann PershingVA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California - USA.
Tyler S ColeStanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, Stanford University, Stanford, California - USA.
Nigam H ShahStanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, Stanford University, Stanford, California - USA.
Stanford University · USVA Palo Alto Health Care System · US

Funding

STANFORD COMPOSITE(RMI)U54HG004028 · NHGRI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI MUSEN, MARK A · 2005 to 2014
$36.2M
Methods for generalized ontology terms enrichment analysisR01LM011369 · NLM · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI SHAH, NIGAM H · 2013 to 2020
$5.0M
Mining health data for drug safety profilesR01GM101430 · NIGMS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI SHAH, NIGAM H · 2013 to 2017
$2.9M
NHGRI NIH HHS U54 HG004028NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM101430NLM NIH HHS R01 LM011369
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCataract surgery is generally safe; however, severe complications exist. Preexisting conditions are known to predispose patients to intraoperative and postoperative complications. This study quantifies the relationship between aggregated preoperative risk factors and cataract surgery complications, and builds a model predicting outcomes on an individual level, given a constellation of patient characteristics.

methodsThis study utilized a retrospective cohort of patients age 40 years or older who received cataract surgery. Risk factors, complications, and demographic information were extracted from the Electronic Health Record based on International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition codes, Current Procedural Terminology codes, drug prescription information, and text data mining. We used a bootstrapped least absolute shrinkage and selection operator model to identify highly associated variables. We built random forest classifiers for each complication to create predictive models.

resultsOur data corroborated existing literature, including the association of intraoperative complications, complex cataract surgery, black race, and/or prior eye surgery with increased risk of any postoperative complications. We also found other, less well-described risk factors, including diabetes mellitus, young age (<60 years), and hyperopia, as risk factors for complex cataract surgery and intraoperative and postoperative complications. Our predictive models outperformed existing published models.

conclusionsThe aggregated risk factors and complications described here can guide new avenues of research and provide specific, personalized risk assessment for a patient considering cataract surgery. Furthermore, the predictive capacity of our models can enable risk stratification of patients, which has utility as a teaching tool as well as informing quality/value-based reimbursements.

Indexed as

Cataract ExtractionIntraoperative ComplicationsModels, TheoreticalPostoperative ComplicationsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansLens, CrystallineMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID26692059
PMCPMC4930873
OpenAlexW2212449391

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.