SynthesisANZ journal of surgery2022
External validation of a surgical mortality risk prediction model for inpatient noncardiac surgery in an Australian private health insurance dataset.
Synthesis in ANZ journal of surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative analysis of perceptions on artificial intelligence in surgery: a survey study among surgeons and medical students in Ireland.Irish journal of medical science · 2025Article
- [Preoperative risk prediction models for noncardiac surgery patients : Interpret and use risk scores correctly].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2024Article
- An interrater reliability analysis of preoperative mortality risk calculators used for elective high-risk noncardiac surgical patients shows poor to moderate reliability.BMC anesthesiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe previously conducted a systematic review to identify surgical mortality risk prediction tools suitable for adapting in the Australian context and identified the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT) as an ideal model. The primary aim was to investigate the external validity of SORT for predicting in-hospital mortality in a large Australian private health insurance dataset.
methodsA cohort study using a prospectively collected Australian private health insurance dataset containing over 2 million deidentified records. External validation was conducted by applying the predictive equation for SORT to the complete case analysis dataset. Model re-estimation (recalibration) was performed by logistic regression.
resultsThe complete case analysis dataset contained 161 277 records. In-hospital mortality was 0.2% (308/161277). The mean estimated risk given by SORT was 0.2% and the median (IQR) was 0.01% (0.003%-0.08%). Discrimination was high (c-statistic 0.96) and calibration was accurate over the range 0%-10%, beyond which mortality was over-predicted but confidence intervals included or closely approached the perfect prediction line. Re-estimation of the equation did not improve over-prediction. Model diagnostics suggested the presence of outliers or highly influential values.
conclusionThe low perioperative mortality rate suggests the dataset was not representative of the overall Australian surgical population, primarily due to selection bias and classification bias. Our results suggest SORT may significantly under-predict 30-day mortality in this dataset. Given potential differences in perioperative mortality, private health insurance status and hospital setting should be considered as covariables when a locally validated national surgical mortality risk prediction model is developed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35979735What 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.