Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34159159›Full record

ArticleHepatobiliary surgery and nutrition2021

A simple scoring system to estimate perioperative mortality following liver resection for primary liver malignancy-the Hepatectomy Risk Score (HeRS).

Dimitrios Moris, Brian I Shaw, Cecilia Ong, Ashton Connor, Mariya L Samoylova, Samuel J Kesseli, Nader Abraham, Jared Gloria, Robin Schmitz, Zachary W Fitch and 2 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dimitrios MorisDepartment of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Brian I ShawDepartment of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Cecilia OngDepartment of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Ashton ConnorDepartment of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Mariya L SamoylovaDepartment of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Samuel J KesseliDepartment of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Nader AbrahamDepartment of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Jared GloriaDepartment of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Robin SchmitzDepartment of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Zachary W FitchDepartment of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Bryan M ClaryDepartment of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Andrew S BarbasDepartment of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Duke Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelection of the optimal treatment modality for primary liver cancers remains complex, balancing patient condition, liver function, and extent of disease. In individuals with preserved liver function, liver resection remains the primary approach for treatment with curative intent but may be associated with significant mortality. The purpose of this study was to establish a simple scoring system based on Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) and extent of resection to guide risk assessment for liver resections.

methodsThe 2005-2015 NSQIP database was queried for patients undergoing liver resection for primary liver malignancy. We first developed a model that incorporated the extent of resection (1 point for major hepatectomy) and a MELD-Na score category of low (MELD-Na =6, 1 point), medium (MELD-Na =7-10, 2 points) or high (MELD-Na >10, 3 points) with a score range of 1-4, called the Hepatic Resection Risk Score (HeRS). We tested the predictive value of this model on the dataset using logistic regression. We next developed an optimal multivariable model using backwards sequential selection of variables under logistic regression. We performed K-fold cross validation on both models. Receiver operating characteristics were plotted and the optimal sensitivity and specificity for each model were calculated to obtain positive and negative predictive values.

resultsA total of 4,510 patients were included. HeRS was associated with increased odds of 30-day mortality [HeRS =2: OR =3.23 (1.16-8.99), P=0.025; HeRS =3: OR =6.54 (2.39-17.90), P<0.001; HeRS =4: OR =13.69 (4.90-38.22), P<0.001]. The AUC for this model was 0.66. The AUC for the optimal multivariable model was higher at 0.76. Under K-fold cross validation, the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of these two models were similar at PPV =6.4% and NPV =97.7% for the HeRS only model and PPV =8.4% and NPV =98.1% for the optimal multivariable model.

conclusionsThe HeRS offers a simple heuristic for estimating 30-day mortality after resection of primary liver malignancy. More complicated models offer better performance but at the expense of being more difficult to integrate into clinical practice.

Indexed as

cholangiocarcinomaHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)liver resectionModel for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD)outcomes

Identifiers

PMID34159159
PMCPMC8188137
OpenAlexW3014000914

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.