Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36124474›Full record

ArticleJournal of minimal access surgery2024

Evaluation of ACS-NSQIP and CR-POSSUM risk calculators for the prediction of mortality after colorectal surgery: A retrospective cohort study.

Nitin Vashistha, Siddharth Singhal, Sandeep Budhiraja, Dinesh Singhal

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of minimal access surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07325656 (Comparison of Scoring Systems for Predicting Morbidity and Mortality in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Gastrointestinal Malignancies), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT07325656 completednot on this map

Comparison of Scoring Systems for Predicting Morbidity and Mortality in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Gastrointestinal Malignancies

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorLütfi Kırdar City HospitalRan2021 to 2021Enrolled120ConditionsGastro Intestinal Cancer, Scoring Systems
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nitin VashisthaDepartment of Surgical Gastroenterology, Max Super Specialty Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Siddharth SinghalDepartment of Surgical Gastroenterology, Max Super Specialty Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Sandeep BudhirajaClinical Directorate, Max Super Specialty Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Dinesh SinghalDepartment of Surgical Gastroenterology, Max Super Specialty Hospital, New Delhi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral risk calculating tools have been introduced into clinical practice to provide patients and clinicians with objective, individualised estimates of procedure-related unfavourable outcomes. The currently available risk calculators (RCs) have been developed by well-endowed health systems in Europe and the USA. Applicability of these RCs in low-middle income country (LMIC) settings with wide disparities in patient population, surgical practice and healthcare infrastructure has not been adequately examined. PATIENTS AND

methodsThrough this single tertiary care, LMIC-centre, retrospective cohort study, we investigated the accuracy of the two most widely validated RCs - American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) RC and ColoRectal Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity (CR-POSSUM) - for the prediction of mortality in patients undergoing elective and emergency colorectal surgery (CRS) from March 2013 to March 2020. Online RCs were used to predict mortality and other outcomes. Accuracy was assessed by Brier score and C statistic.

resultsOf 105 patients, 69 (65.71%) underwent elective and 36 (34.28%) underwent emergency CRS. The 30-day overall mortality was 12 - elective 1 (1.4%) and emergency 11 (30.5%). ACS-NSQIP RC performed better for the prediction of overall ( C statistic 0.939, Brier score 0.065) and emergency ( C statistic 0.840, Brier score 0.152) mortality. However, for elective CRS mortality, Brier scores were similar for both models (0.014), whereas C statistic (0.934 vs. 0.890) value was better for ACS-NSQIP.

conclusionsBoth ACS-NSQIP and CR-POSSUM were accurate for the prediction of CRS mortality. However, compared to CR-POSSUM, ACS-NSQIP performed better. The overall performance of both models is indicative of their wider applicability in LMIC centres also.

Identifiers

PMID36124474
PMCPMC11095800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.