ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2023
Evaluation of different scoring systems in the prediction of complications, morbidity, and mortality after laparoscopic radical gastrectomy.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the E-PASS, mE-PASS, and POSSUM scoring systems for predicting postoperative complications following radical nephrectomy.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Application of POSSUM scores in post-operative complication assessment in patients undergoing general surgery: a retrospective study.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Comparison of different scoring systems for prediction of postoperative complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Risk factors analysis of hypokalemia after radical resection of esophageal cancer and establishment of a nomogram risk prediction model.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis retrospective study aimed to assess the suitability of POSSUM and its modified versions, E-PASS and its modified score, SRS, and SORT scores for predicting postoperative complications and mortality in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer. MATERIALS AND
methodsData analysis was performed on 349 patients who underwent laparoscopic radical gastrectomy at Tianjin Medical University General Hospital between January 2016 and December 2021. The discriminative ability of the scoring systems was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The primary endpoint focused on the prediction of postoperative complications, while the secondary endpoint assessed the prediction of postoperative mortality.
resultsAmong the scoring systems evaluated, the modified E-PASS (mE-PASS) score exhibited the highest AUC (0.846) and demonstrated the highest sensitivity (81%) and specificity (79%) for predicting postoperative complications. All other scores, except for POSSUM, showed moderate discriminative ability in predicting complications. In terms of predicting postoperative mortality, the E-PASS score had the highest AUC (0.978), while the mE-PASS score displayed the highest sensitivity (76%) and specificity (90%). Notably, both E-PASS and mE-PASS scores exhibited excellent discriminative ability.
conclusionsThe P-POSSUM, O-POSSUM, E-PASS, mE-PASS, SRS, and SORT scoring systems are useful tools for predicting postoperative outcomes in laparoscopic radical gastrectomy. Among them, the mE-PASS score demonstrated the best predictive power. However, the POSSUM system could only be applicable to predict postoperative mortality.
Indexed as
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.