ArticleJournal of minimally invasive gynecology2017
Evaluation of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator in Gynecologic Oncology Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Surgery.
Article in Journal of minimally invasive gynecology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Head-to-Head Comparison: P-POSSUM and ACS-NSQIPCancers · 2024Article
- Article
- Inaccurate Risk Assessment by the ACS NSQIP Risk Calculator in Aortic Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- A non-linear ensemble model-based surgical risk calculator for mixed data from multiple surgical fields.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Assessing the Performance of the De Novo Postoperative Stress Urinary Incontinence Calculator.Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery · 2021Article
- Performance of the American College of Surgeons NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator for Total Gastrectomy.Journal of the American College of Surgeons · 2020Article
- Is the ACS-NSQIP Risk Calculator Accurate in Predicting Adverse Postoperative Outcomes in the Emergency Setting? An Italian Single-center Preliminary Study.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
- Predicting complications of major head and neck oncological surgery: an evaluation of the ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale · 2018Article
- Might Doctors Really "Know Best"?: Utilizing Surgeon Intuition to Strengthen Preoperative Surgical Risk Assessment.The Iowa orthopaedic journal · 2018Article
- 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
objectiveTo evaluate the ability of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) surgical risk calculator to predict discharge to postacute care and perioperative complications in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery (MIS).
designA retrospective chart review (Canadian Task Force classification II-1).
settingA university hospital. PATIENTS: All patients undergoing MIS on the gynecologic oncology service from January 1, 2009, to December 30, 2013.
interventionsSurgical procedures were reviewed, and appropriate Common Procedural Terminology codes were assigned. Twenty-one preoperative risk factors were abstracted from the chart and entered into the ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator. The predicted risk of discharge to postacute care and 8 additional postoperative complications were calculated and recorded. Actual postoperative complications were abstracted from the medical record. The association between the calculated risk and the actual outcome was determined using logistic regression. The ability of the calculator to accurately predict a particular event was assessed using the c-statistic and Brier score. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsOf the 876 patients reviewed, a majority underwent hysterectomy (71.6%), with almost half of those patients undergoing additional cancer staging procedures (34.8%). Although the calculator was a poor predictor of postoperative complications, it was a strong predictor for discharge to postacute care (c-statistic = 0.91, Brier score = 0.02) with an odds ratio of 2.31 (95% confidence interval, 1.65-3.25; p < .0001).
conclusionThe ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator does not accurately predict postoperative complications or length of stay in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing MIS. Although it was a strong predictor of need for discharge to postacute care, it vastly overestimated the number of patients requiring this service. Therefore, the calculator's risk score for discharge to postacute care may be considered during preoperative counseling but should not be a predictor of whether or not the patient should proceed with surgery.
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.