ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia
Can ACS-NSQIP score be used to predict postoperative mortality in Saudi population?
Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS-NATIONAL SURGICAL QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CALCULATOR AND SURGICAL APGAR AS PREDICTORS OF POST-CHOLECYSTECTOMY COMPLICATIONS.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2025Article
- 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
- Mortality Risk Stratification in Emergency Surgery for Obstructive Colon Cancer-External Validation of International Scores, American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator (SRC), and the Dedicated Score of French Surgical Association (AFC/OCC Score).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Various scoring systems help in classifying the patient's risk preoperatively and hence to decide the best available treatment option. ACS-NSQIP score has been introduced in clinical practice for few years. This study was done to find out whether there is any difference between predicted mortality from ACS-NSQIP score and observed mortality in Saudi population. Methods: This prospective observational study was conducted at Security Forces Hospital, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We included patients undergoing elective and emergency surgical procedures in our hospital. Thirty days mortality data was collected and then observed to expected (O/E) mortality ratio was calculated. The sample size for our study was nine hundred and three (903) patients. Results: The mean ACS-NSQIP mortality risk score (%) for the study was 0.49. Expected number of mortalities was 4.42 while observed mortalities were 11, yielding an O/E ratio of 2.48 (p-value 0.000). We did not find a significant difference between expected and observed mortalities except for ASA class 3 and 4 patients where expected numbers of mortalities were lower than observed (p-value < 0.05). Conclusion: ACS-NSQIP can be reliably used for postoperative mortality prediction especially in lower risk groups.
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.