ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Retrospective validation of parkland grading scale in a Latin-American high-volume center.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncreased complication rates following laparoscopic cholecystectomies have been described, likely related to surgical difficulty, anatomical variations, and gallbladder inflammation severity. Parkland Grading Scale (PGS) stratifies the severity of intraoperative findings to predict operative difficulty and complications. This study aims to validate PGS as a postoperative-outcome predictive tool, comparing its performance with Tokyo Guidelines Grading System (TGGS).
methodsThis is a single-center retrospective cohort study where PGS and TGGS performances were evaluated regarding intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Both univariate and bivariate analyses were performed on each severity grading scale using STATA-SE 16.0 software. Additionally, we proposed a Logistic Regression Model for each scale. Their association with outcomes was compared between both scales by their Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve.
results400 Patients were included. Grade 1 predominance was observed for both PGS and TGGS (47.36% and 25.3%, respectively). A positive association was observed between higher PGS grades and inpatient postoperative care, length of stay, ICU care, and antibiotic requirement. Based on the area under the ROC curve, better performance was observed for PGS over TGGS in the evaluated outcomes.
conclusionPGS performed better than TGGS as a predictive tool for inpatient postoperative care, length of stay, ICU, and antibiotic requirement, especially in severe cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36947228What 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.