ArticleUpdates in surgery2020
The importance of discussing mortality risk prior to emergency laparotomy.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence for predicting 30-day mortality after emergency laparotomy.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Emergency laparotomies are often required for life-threatening conditions and consequently are associated with high mortality. This risk should be discussed with patients and ideally their next of kin (NOK). Failure to do so denies patients and their relatives the opportunity to prepare, breaches consent guidance, and may result in complaints and negligent claims. Patients who underwent an emergency laparotomy over 6 months were retrospectively studied. Mortality risk discussion with patients and their NOK as evidenced by documentation on consent forms or clinical notes was recorded. Factors influencing these discussions included patient's age, American Society of Anaesthesiologists' score, pre-operative diagnosis, Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enumeration of Mortality and morbidity (P-POSSUM); seniority of consenting surgeon was also investigated. Seventy-six consecutive patients underwent an emergency laparotomy. Sixty-nine had capacity to give consent. Mortality risk was discussed with 24 (34.8%). These patients were older (median age 77.5 v 65.5 years; P < 0.05) and had a higher median P-POSSUM score (11.5% v 7%; P = 0.313) compared to patient with whom mortality risk was not discussed. Mortality risk was discussed with 14 (18.4%) NOK. This was not influenced by any factor studied. For patients requiring an emergency laparotomy, mortality risk was infrequently discussed with both patients and their NOK. These patients have a higher mortality risk than any other and this "failure to inform" has the potential for serious ramifications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32385794What 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.