ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Inaccurate Risk Assessment by the ACS NSQIP Risk Calculator in Aortic Surgery.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical cancellation and changes in postoperative level of care among high and moderate risk surgical patients in the UK.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2026Article
- Predicting outcomes following endovascular aortoiliac revascularization using machine learning.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Predicting outcomes following open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair using machine learning.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Predicting 30-day reoperation following primary total knee arthroplasty: machine learning model outperforms the ACS risk calculator.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2025Article
- Article
- Predicting inferior vena cava filter complications using machine learning.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2024Article
- Validation of the American College of Surgeons surgical risk calculator for thoracic surgery.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Using Machine Learning to Predict Outcomes Following Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Predicting Outcomes Following Lower Extremity Endovascular Revascularization Using Machine Learning.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- 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
- Evaluation of the ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator in patients undergoing common bile duct exploration.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this retrospective study was to assess the predictive performance of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) risk calculator for aortic aneurysm repair for the patient population of a Dutch tertiary referral hospital.
methodsThis retrospective study included all patients who underwent elective endovascular or open aortic aneurysm repair at our institution between the years 2013 and 2019. Preoperative patient demographics and postoperative complication data were collected, and individual risk assessments were generated using five different current procedural terminology (CPT) codes. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration plots, Brier scores, and Index of Prediction Accuracy (IPA) values were generated to evaluate the predictive performance of the ACS risk calculator in terms of discrimination and calibration.
resultsTwo hundred thirty-four patients who underwent elective endovascular or open aortic aneurysm repair were identified. Only five out of thirteen risk predictions were found to be sufficiently discriminative. Furthermore, the ACS risk calculator showed a structurally insufficient calibration. Most Brier scores were close to 0; however, comparison to a null model though IPA-scores showed the predictions generated by the ACS risk calculator to be inaccurate. Overall, the ACS risk calculator showed a consistent underestimation of the risk of complications.
conclusionsThe ACS risk calculator proved to be inaccurate within the framework of endovascular and open aortic aneurysm repair in our medical center. To minimize the effects of patient selection and cultural differences, multicenter collaboration is necessary to assess the performance of the ACS risk calculator in aortic surgery.
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.