Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38383661›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of surgical oncology2024

Prediction of Morbidity and Mortality After Esophagectomy: A Systematic Review.

M P van Nieuw Amerongen, H J de Grooth, G L Veerman, K A Ziesemer, M I van Berge Henegouwen, P R Tuinman

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Postoperative pulmonary complications after esophagectomy: risk factors and prediction model.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

6 authors.

M P van Nieuw AmerongenDepartment of Adult Intensive Care Medicine, Amsterdam UMC (VUmc), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.vannieuwamerongen2@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-2637-3443
H J de GroothDepartment of Adult Intensive Care Medicine, Amsterdam UMC (VUmc), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
G L VeermanDepartment of Adult Intensive Care Medicine, Amsterdam UMC (VUmc), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
K A ZiesemerMedical Library, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M I van Berge HenegouwenDepartment of surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
P R TuinmanDepartment of Adult Intensive Care Medicine, Amsterdam UMC (VUmc), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEsophagectomy for esophageal cancer has a complication rate of up to 60%. Prediction models could be helpful to preoperatively estimate which patients are at increased risk of morbidity and mortality. The objective of this study was to determine the best prediction models for morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy and to identify commonalities among the models. PATIENTS AND

methodsA systematic review was performed in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and was prospectively registered in PROSPERO ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ , study ID CRD42022350846). Pubmed, Embase, and Clarivate Analytics/Web of Science Core Collection were searched for studies published between 2010 and August 2022. The Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Extracted data were tabulated and a narrative synthesis was performed.

resultsOf the 15,011 articles identified, 22 studies were included using data from tens of thousands of patients. This systematic review included 33 different models, of which 18 models were newly developed. Many studies showed a high risk of bias. The prognostic accuracy of models differed between 0.51 and 0.85. For most models, variables are readily available. Two models for mortality and one model for pulmonary complications have the potential to be developed further.

conclusionsThe availability of rigorous prediction models is limited. Several models are promising but need to be further developed. Some models provide information about risk factors for the development of complications. Performance status is a potential modifiable risk factor. None are ready for clinical implementation.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyPostoperative ComplicationsHumansMorbidityPrognosisRisk AssessmentSurvival RateEsophageal cancerEsophagectomyMorbidityMortalityPrediction models

Identifiers

PMID38383661
PMCPMC10997705

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.