ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Validation of original, alternative, and updated alternative fistula risk scores after open and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy in an Asian patient cohort.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. 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.
- Article
- Risk stratification of postoperative pancreatic fistula and other complications following pancreatoduodenectomy. How far are we? A scoping review.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Article
- Enhanced preoperative prediction of pancreatic fistula using radiomics and clinical features with SHAP visualization.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to validate and compare the performance of the original fistula risk scores (o-FRS), alternative (a-FRS), and updated alternative FRS (ua-FRS) after open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) in an Asian patient cohort.
methodsData of 597 consecutive patients who underwent PD (305 OPD, 274 LPD) were collected from two tertiary centers. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC).
resultsThe overall AUC values of o-FRS, a-FRS, and ua-FRS were 0.67, 0.69, and 0.68, respectively, which were lower than those of the Western validation. Three FRS systems had similar AUC values in the overall and OPD groups, whereas ua-FRS had a higher AUC than o-FRS in the LPD group. The accuracy of ua-FRS (47.2%) was higher than that of o-FRS (39.0%) and a-FRS (19.5%) overall, but low specificity and low positive predictive value were observed regardless of the operative type across the three FRS systems. In the multivariate analysis, pathology, estimated blood loss, and body mass index were not independent risk factors for CR-POPF in the OPD and LPD groups.
conclusionsCurrent FRS systems have some limitations, including a relatively lower performance in an Asian cohort, low positive predictive values, and inclusion of insignificant risk factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36229557What 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.