ArticleJournal of surgical oncology2016
Comparison of observed to predicted outcomes using the ACS NSQIP risk calculator in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Article in Journal of surgical oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-Optimized 3D-Printed Dual-Layer Implant: Resolving Chemo-Immunotherapy Sequential Administration Dilemma for Colorectal Cancer Peritoneal Metastasis.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026Article
- Histopathological evaluation after pancreatic surgery: Comparison of the results of HPB-specific pathologists and non-specific pathologists.Turkish journal of surgery · 2023Article
- How surgeons use risk calculators and non-clinical factors for informed consent and shared decision making: A qualitative study.American journal of surgery · 2023Article
- External Validation of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Calculator Utilizing a Single Institutional Experience for Adult Spinal Deformity Corrective Surgery.International journal of spine surgery · 2023Article
- Article
- Evaluation of complications after laparoscopic and open appendectomy by the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program surgical risk calculator.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2022Article
- Leveraging Decision Curve Analysis to Improve Clinical Application of Surgical Risk Calculators.The Journal of surgical research · 2021Article
- Modified Frailty Index is Useful in Predicting Non-home Discharge in Elderly Patients with Gastric Cancer Who Undergo Gastrectomy.World journal of surgery · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator in Elderly Patients Undergoing Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2020Article
- Predicting Post-operative Complications in Crohn's Disease: an Appraisal of Clinical Scoring Systems and the NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2020Article
- Predicted versus observed 30-day perioperative outcomes using the ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator in patients undergoing partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma.International urology and nephrology · 2018Article
- Predictive validity of the ACS-NSQIP surgical risk calculator in geriatric patients undergoing lumbar surgery.Medicine · 2017Article
- Modified frailty index predicts postoperative outcomes in older gastrointestinal cancer patients.Journal of surgical oncology · 2017Article
- Can ACS-NSQIP score be used to predict postoperative mortality in Saudi population?Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPostoperative outcomes predicted by the ACS NSQIP universal risk calculator have not been validated for specific procedures like pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).
methodsA random sample of 400 PD patients from the NSQIP database was analyzed. Patients were categorized into four groups of 100 each based on ICD-9 diagnosis (211.6, 157.0, 156.2, and 577.1). Estimated risks of postoperative outcomes recorded by the calculator were compared to observed outcomes using the Brier Score (BS). The calculated BS was compared to a null model BS. A BS of zero indicated perfect prediction, while a BS of one indicated the poorest prediction.
resultsBS for all groupings was generally low, reflecting good prediction. BS for any and major complications was higher (0.23 and 0.22, respectively). This was also seen within ICD-9 subgroups. For patients with ampullary cancer, BS for these outcomes was higher (0.27 and 0.26, respectively). Comparison to the null model BS (0.24 and 0.24, respectively) correlated lesser predictive accuracy of the calculator for this subgroup.
conclusionsThe ACS NSQIP risk calculator, although accurate in predicting outcomes in patients undergoing PD, shows variation when accounting for specific ICD-9 diagnoses. Incorporating the diagnosis may better guide surgeons and patients preoperatively in making informed decisions. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:157-162. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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.