Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31240416›Full record

ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2019

The REAL (REctal Anastomotic Leak) score for prediction of anastomotic leak after rectal cancer surgery.

A Arezzo, M Migliore, P Chiaro, S Arolfo, C Filippini, D Di Cuonzo, R Cirocchi, M Morino, REAL Score Collaborators

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Management of anastomotic leak after elective anterior resection for rectal cancer: A systematic review and pooled analysis.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

A ArezzoDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Corso Dogliotti 14, 10126, Turin, Italy. alberto.arezzo@unito.it.
M MiglioreDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Corso Dogliotti 14, 10126, Turin, Italy.
P ChiaroDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Corso Dogliotti 14, 10126, Turin, Italy.
S ArolfoDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Corso Dogliotti 14, 10126, Turin, Italy.
C FilippiniDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Corso Dogliotti 14, 10126, Turin, Italy.
D Di CuonzoCancer Epidemiology Unit, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, CPO Piemonte, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
R CirocchiDepartment of General Surgery, Terni Hospital, University of Perugia, Terni, Italy.
M MorinoDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Corso Dogliotti 14, 10126, Turin, Italy.
REAL Score Collaborators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnastomotic leak after rectal cancer surgery is a severe complication associated with poorer oncologic outcome and quality of life. Preoperative assessment of the risk for anastomotic leak is a key component of surgical planning, including the opportunity to create a defunctioning stoma.

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to identify and quantify the risk factors for anastomotic leak to minimize risk by either not restoring bowel continuity or protecting the anastomosis with a temporary diverting stoma.

methodsPotentially relevant studies were identified from the following databases: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library. This meta-analysis included studies on transabdominal resection for rectal cancer that reported data about anastomotic leak. The risk for anastomotic leak after rectal cancer surgery was investigated. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors were extracted and used to compare anastomotic leak rates. All variables demonstrating a p value < 0.1 in the univariate analysis were entered into a multivariate logistic regression model to determine the risk factors for anastomotic leak.

resultsTwenty-six centers provided individual data on 9735 patients. Selected preoperative covariates (time before surgery, age, gender, smoking, previous abdominal surgery, BMI, diabetes, ASA, hemoglobin level, TNM classification stage, anastomotic distance) were used as independent factors in a logistic regression model with anastomotic leak as dependent variable. With a threshold value of the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve corresponding to 0.0791 in the training set, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.585 (p < 0.0001). Sensitivity and specificity of the model's probability > 0.0791 to identify anastomotic leak were 79.1% and 32.9%, respectively. Accuracy of the threshold value was confirmed in the validation set with 77.8% sensitivity and 35.2% specificity.

conclusionsWe trust that, with further refinement using prospective data, this nomogram based on preoperative risk factors may assist surgeons in decision making. The score is now available online ( http://www.real-score.org ).

Indexed as

AgedAnastomosis, SurgicalAnastomotic LeakFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingNomogramsPredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesQuality of LifeRectal NeoplasmsRectumRisk AssessmentAnastomotic leakRectal cancerScore

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.