ArticleBJS open2021
Comparison of short-term outcomes from the International Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA), the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG), and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA).
Article in BJS open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT06662513 (An Australian Regional Hospital's Oesophagectomy Outcomes), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
An Australian Regional Hospital's Oesophagectomy Outcomes
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of anastomotic leak after esophagectomy.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2026Guideline
- Complications and survival after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Utility and outcomes of routine jejunostomy placement following oesophagectomy.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2026Article
- The prevalence, nature and trajectory of oropharyngeal dysphagia within the first year following curative open resection for esophageal cancer.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- An Australian regional hospital's oesophagectomy experience: A 10-year case series from Tasmania.Surgery in practice and science · 2025Article
- Oesophagectomy in the East versus the West: comparison of two national audit databases.The British journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Incidence trends of surgical complications after oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: a population-based, nationwide cohort study in Finland over 30 years.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Evaluating Postoperative Morbidity and Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Esophagectomy in Esophageal Cancer Treatment-A Comprehensive Review on Behalf of TROGSS (The Robotic Global Surgical Society) and EFISDS (European Federation International Society for Digestive Surgery) Joint Working Group.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Review
- How to measure quality of surgery as a component of multimodality treatment of gastric cancer.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2024Review
- Predictors and Significance of Readmission after Esophagogastric Surgery: A Nationwide Analysis.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024Article
- Systemic Inflammatory Response and the Noble and Underwood (NUn) Score as Early Predictors of Anastomotic Leakage after Esophageal Reconstructive Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Evaluation of the use of inflammatory biomarkers in the early detection of anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy: A retrospective analysis.Surgery open science · 2022Article
- From open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy to a hybrid robotic-assisted thoracoscopic approach: a single-center experience over two decades.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) have set standards in reporting outcomes after oesophagectomy. Reporting outcomes from selected high-volume centres or centralized national cancer programmes may not, however, be reflective of the true global prevalence of complications. This study aimed to compare complication rates after oesophagectomy from these existing sources with those of an unselected international cohort from the Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA).
methodsThe OGAA was a prospective multicentre cohort study coordinated by the West Midlands Research Collaborative, and included patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer between April and December 2018, with 90 days of follow-up.
resultsThe OGAA study included 2247 oesophagectomies across 137 hospitals in 41 countries. Comparisons with the ECCG and DUCA found differences in baseline demographics between the three cohorts, including age, ASA grade, and rates of chronic pulmonary disease. The OGAA had the lowest rates of neoadjuvant treatment (OGAA 75.1 per cent, ECCG 78.9 per cent, DUCA 93.5 per cent; P < 0.001). DUCA exhibited the highest rates of minimally invasive surgery (OGAA 57.2 per cent, ECCG 47.9 per cent, DUCA 85.8 per cent; P < 0.001). Overall complication rates were similar in the three cohorts (OGAA 63.6 per cent, ECCG 59.0 per cent, DUCA 62.2 per cent), with no statistically significant difference in Clavien-Dindo grades (P = 0.752). However, a significant difference in 30-day mortality was observed, with DUCA reporting the lowest rate (OGAA 3.2 per cent, ECCG 2.4 per cent, DUCA 1.7 per cent; P = 0.013).
conclusionDespite differences in rates of co-morbidities, oncological treatment strategies, and access to minimal-access surgery, overall complication rates were similar in the three cohorts.
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.