Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37120485›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2023

Preoperative Risk Stratification in Esophageal Cancer Surgery: Comparing Risk Models with the Clinical Judgment of the Surgeon.

Eliza R C Hagens, Nanke Cui, Susan van Dieren, Wietse J Eshuis, Wytze Laméris, Mark I van Berge Henegouwen, Suzanne S Gisbertz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

7 authors.

Eliza R C Hagens *Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nanke Cui *Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Susan van DierenDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Wietse J EshuisDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Wytze LamérisDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mark I van Berge HenegouwenDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Suzanne S GisbertzDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. s.s.gisbertz@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9655-7601

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNumerous prediction models estimating the risk of complications after esophagectomy exist but are rarely used in practice. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical judgment of surgeons using these prediction models.

methodsPatients with resectable esophageal cancer who underwent an esophagectomy were included in this prospective study. Prediction models for postoperative complications after esophagectomy were selected by a systematic literature search. Clinical judgment was given by three surgeons, indicating their estimated risk for postoperative complications in percentage categories. The best performing prediction model was compared with the judgment of the surgeons, using the net reclassification improvement (NRI), category-free NRI (cfNRI), and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) indexes.

resultsOverall, 159 patients were included between March 2019 and July 2021, of whom 88 patients (55%) developed a complication. The best performing prediction model showed an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.56. The three surgeons had an AUC of 0.53, 0.55, and 0.59, respectively, and all surgeons showed negative percentages of cfNRI

conclusionPrediction models tend to overestimate the risk of any complication, whereas surgeons tend to underestimate this risk. Overall, surgeons' estimations differ between surgeons and vary between similar to slightly better than the prediction models.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsSurgeonsHumansJudgmentPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID37120485
PMCPMC10319689

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.