ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2020
Evaluation of the ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator in patients undergoing pelvic organ prolapse surgery.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of the ACS-NSQIP surgical risk calculator for patients with paraoesophageal hernias undergoing robotic repair.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- A meta-analysis of the American college of surgeons risk calculator's predictive accuracy among different surgical sub-specialties.Surgery in practice and science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) surgical risk calculator in predicting postoperative complications in patients undergoing pelvic organ prolapse surgery.
methodsWe performed a retrospective review of 354 patients who underwent surgery for pelvic organ prolapse from 2013 to 2017 at a single academic institution. Patient medical information and surgical procedure were entered into the calculator to obtain predicted complication rates, which were compared with observed complications. Logistic regression, C-statistic, and Brier score were used to assess the accuracy of the calculator.
resultsOf 354 patients included in the analysis, 79.7% were under the age of 75, and 41.5% were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥3. The majority of patients underwent robotic sacrocolpopexy (40.7%) or uterosacral ligament suspension (36.4%), followed by colpocleisis, abdominal sacrocolpopexy, and extraperitoneal suspension. Complications were experienced by 100 patients (28.3%). Most common complications were urinary tract infection (n = 57), surgical site infection (n = 42), and readmission (n = 16); other complications were rare. The surgical risk calculator displayed poor predictive ability for experiencing a complication (C-statistic = 0.547, Brier score = 0.25).
conclusionsThe NSQIP surgical risk calculator displayed poor predictive ability in our cohort of patients undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse, suggesting that this tool might have limited clinical applicability to individual patients in this population.
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.