ArticleMaedica2022
Natural Ending or Surgical Complication: Is It the Time to Reconsider the Clavien-Dindo Classification System?
Article in Maedica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of repeat hepatectomy versus radiofrequency ablation for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: a Systematic Review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Correlation between S.T.O.N.E score and channel size selection in percutaneous nephrolithotomy.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Comment on "Association of frailty with postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing elective non-malignant abdominal surgeries under general or neuraxial anaesthesia".Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- The role of laparoscopy in closed abdominal injury.Heliyon · 2023Article
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
To date, the Clavien-Dindo classification system represents the most popular assessment tool of postoperative events that ranks surgical complications by the extent of respective required therapeutic interventions. This uniform grading system allows for an objective evaluation of outcomes from a surgical procedure by accurately and standardly defining surgical complications. However, many scientists have meanwhile heavily criticized the Clavien-Dindo classification system as an overly generalized and conservative grading system that requires modification. Herein, we aim to explain the need for reconsideration of the Clavien-Dindo classification system, and discuss the features of an ideal system for the classification of complications that should evaluate not only surgical complications, but also the risk and patient's general performance status.
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.