Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36988007›Full record

Trial reportDiseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus2023

Performance of a consensus-based algorithm for diagnosing anastomotic leak after minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

Jobbe Lemmens, Bastiaan Klarenbeek, Moniek Verstegen, Frans van Workum, Gerjon Hannink, Sander Ubels, Camiel Rosman

Erratum issuedAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of anastomotic leak after esophagectomy.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jobbe LemmensDepartment of Surgery, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Bastiaan KlarenbeekDepartment of Surgery, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Moniek VerstegenDepartment of Surgery, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Frans van WorkumDepartment of Surgery, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Gerjon HanninkDepartment of Operating Rooms, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Sander UbelsDepartment of Surgery, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Camiel RosmanDepartment of Surgery, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

ZonMw
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anastomotic leak (AL) is a common and severe complication after esophagectomy. This study aimed to assess the performance of a consensus-based algorithm for diagnosing AL after minimally invasive esophagectomy. This study used data of the ICAN trial, a multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing cervical and intrathoracic anastomosis, in which a predefined diagnostic algorithm was used to guide diagnosing AL. The algorithm identified patients suspected of AL based on clinical signs, blood C-reactive protein (cut-off value 200 mg/L), and/or drain amylase (cut-off value 200 IU/L). Suspicion of AL prompted evaluation with contrast swallow computed tomography and/or endoscopy to confirm AL. Primary outcome measure was algorithm performance in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV), respectively. AL was defined according to the definition of the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group. 245 patients were included, and 125 (51%) patients were suspected of AL. The algorithm had a sensitivity of 62% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 46-75), a specificity of 97% (95% CI: 89-100), and a PPV and NPV of 94% (95% CI: 79-99) and 77% (95% CI: 66-86), respectively, on initial assessment. Repeated assessment in 19 patients with persisting suspicion of AL despite negative or inconclusive initial assessment had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 77-100). The algorithm showed poor performance because the low sensitivity indicates the inability of the algorithm to confirm AL on initial assessment. Repeated assessment using the algorithm was needed to confirm remaining leaks.

Indexed as

Anastomotic LeakEsophageal NeoplasmsAnastomosis, SurgicalConsensusEsophagectomyHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicRetrospective Studiesalgorithmanastomotic leakdiagnosisminimally invasive esophagectomypostoperative complications

Identifiers

PMID36988007
PMCPMC10543373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.