Observational studyPloS one2024
The risk analysis index is an independent predictor of outcomes after lung cancer resection.
Observational study in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The characterization of frailty in spine surgery: a systematic review of frailty indices.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Pooled it
- The application value of frailty assessment tools in the perioperative period: A narrative review.Journal of anesthesia and translational medicine · 2026Review
- Can Artificial Intelligence Help Us in the Evaluation of Coronary Artery Calcification Scores by Acting as a Prognosticator in Patients That Are Operated on Due to Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer? A Pivotal Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Risk Analysis Index (RAI) is a frailty assessment tool based on an accumulation of deficits model. We mapped RAI to data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Database to determine whether RAI correlates with postoperative outcomes following lung cancer resection. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsThis was a national database retrospective observational study based on data from the STS Database. Study patients underwent surgery 2018 to 2020. RAI was divided into four increasing risk categories. The associations between RAI and each of postoperative complications and administrative outcomes were examined using logistic regression models. We also compared the performance of RAI to established risk indices (American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI)) using areas under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves (AUC). Results: Of 29,420 candidate patients identified in the STS Database, RAI could be calculated for 22,848 (78%). Almost all outcome categories exhibited a progressive increase in marginal probability as RAI increased. On multivariable analyses, RAI was significantly associated with an incremental pattern with almost all outcomes. ROC analyses for RAI demonstrated "good" AUC values for mortality (0.785; 0.748) and discharge location (0.791), but only "fair" values for all other outcome categories (0.618 to 0.690). RAI performed similarly to ASA and CCI in terms of AUC score categories. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: RAI is associated with clinical and administrative outcomes following lung cancer resection. However, its overall accuracy as a surgical risk predictor is only moderate and similar to ASA and CCI. We do not recommend routine use of RAI for assessment of individual patient risk for major lung resection.
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.