SynthesisThe British journal of surgery2022
Systematic review and validation of clinical models predicting survival after oesophagectomy for adenocarcinoma.
Synthesis in The British journal of surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prediction of Morbidity and Mortality After Esophagectomy: A Systematic Review.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Survival prediction landscape: an in-depth systematic literature review on activities, methods, tools, diseases, and databases.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2024Pooled it
- Development and Validation of EsoTIME, a Prognostication Tool for Resected Esophageal and Gastroesophageal Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a prognostic model for overall survival in small cell carcinoma of the esophagus.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOesophageal adenocarcinoma poses a significant global health burden, yet the staging used to predict survival has limited ability to stratify patients by outcome. This study aimed to identify published clinical models that predict survival in oesophageal adenocarcinoma and to evaluate them using an independent international multicentre dataset.
methodsA systematic literature search (title and abstract) using the Ovid Embase and MEDLINE databases (from 1947 to 11 July 2020) was performed. Inclusion criteria were studies that developed or validated a clinical prognostication model to predict either overall or disease-specific survival in patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma undergoing surgical treatment with curative intent. Published models were validated using an independent dataset of 2450 patients who underwent oesophagectomy for oesophageal adenocarcinoma with curative intent.
resultsSeventeen articles were eligible for inclusion in the study. Eleven models were suitable for testing in the independent validation dataset and nine of these were able to stratify patients successfully into groups with significantly different survival outcomes. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for individual survival prediction models ranged from 0.658 to 0.705, suggesting poor-to-fair accuracy.
conclusionThis study highlights the need to concentrate on robust methodologies and improved, independent, validation, to increase the likelihood of clinical adoption of survival predictions models.
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.