Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35179183›Full record

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).

Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Study Group on behalf of the West Midlands Research Collaborative

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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.

NCT06662513 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

An Australian Regional Hospital's Oesophagectomy Outcomes

TypeobservationalSponsorLaunceston General HospitalRan2024 to 2024Enrolled100ConditionsOesophageal CancerArmsNo Intervention: Observational Cohort
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Utility and outcomes of routine jejunostomy placement following oesophagectomy.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2026
    Article
  4. 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 · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Predictors and Significance of Readmission after Esophagogastric Surgery: A Nationwide Analysis.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Study Group on behalf of the West Midlands Research Collaborative
Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 23924
6 · The paper itself

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

Esophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyAnastomosis, SurgicalCohort StudiesConsensus Statements as TopicHumansProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID35179183
PMCPMC8140199
OpenAlexW3195949666

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.