ArticleWorld journal of oncology2015
Thoracoscore and European Society Objective Score Fail to Predict Mortality in the UK.
Article in World journal of oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of risk prediction models for perioperative mortality after thoracic surgery.Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Predicthor: AI-Powered Predictive Risk Model for 30-Day Mortality and 30-Day Complications in Patients Undergoing Thoracic Surgery for Lung Cancer.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025Article
- Outcomes of RATS in comparison to VATS and open lung resections for malignancy in propensity matched high-risk patients.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- A simple prediction score for postoperative mortality after decortication.Journal of thoracic disease · 2023Article
- Determining the optimal time to report mortality after lobectomy for lung cancer: An analysis of the time-varying risk of death.JTCVS open · 2023Article
- Thoracoscore: Does it predict mortality in the Indian scenario? - A retrospective study.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2022Article
- Clinical and quality of life outcomes following anatomical lung resection for lung cancer in high-risk patients.Annals of thoracic medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThoracoscore and the European Society Objective Score (ESOS.01) are two scoring systems used in thoracic surgery to estimate operative mortality risk. We aimed to evaluate if these are valid tools for use in the UK population.
methodsA multi-center, prospective study was carried out on patients undergoing lung resection at six UK centers. Data were submitted electronically using our online data collection tool. Data were analyzed to determine the factors affecting mortality. A receiver operating characteristic analysis determined the ability of the thoracoscore and ESOS.01 to predict in-hospital mortality.
resultsData were complete for 2,245 patients. The observed in-hospital mortality was 31 patients (1.38%). Mean thoracoscore was 2.66 (SD ± 3.21). Gender (P = 0.004, hazard ratio 4.786) and co-morbidity score (P = 0.005, hazard ratio 3.289) were identified as risk factors for mortality. A sub-analysis was performed using data from 1,912 patients with complete data for ESOS.01. In this group, mean thoracoscore was 2.55 (SD ± 2.94), mean ESOS.01 was 2.11(SD ± 1.41), and these were statistically significantly different (P < 0.0001). The observed in-hospital mortality was 28 patients (1.46%). The c-index for thoracoscore was 0.705, and for ESOS.01 was 0.739.
conclusionsBoth thoracoscore and ESOS.01 overestimated mortality in the UK population. There is a continued need to develop an appropriate risk prediction system for the UK.
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.