ArticleJornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia2024
External validation of the parsimonious EuroLung risk models: analysis of the Brazilian Lung Cancer Registry.
Article in Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital Versus Conventional Chest Drainage Systems in Resource-limited Setting: A Comparative Analysis.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Understanding barriers to adjuvant therapy in resected non-small cell lung cancer: A multicenter analysis.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess performance in the Brazilian Lung Cancer Registry Database by using the parsimonious EuroLung risk models for morbidity and mortality.
methodsThe EuroLung1 and EuroLung2 models were tested and evaluated through calibration (calibration plot, Brier score, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test) and discrimination (ROC AUCs), in a national multicenter registry of 1,031 patients undergoing anatomic lung resection.
resultsThe evaluation of performance in Brazilian health care facilities utilizing risk-adjustment models, specifically EuroLung1 and EuroLung2, revealed substantial miscalibration, as evidenced by calibration plots and Hosmer-Lemeshow tests in both models. In terms of calibration, EuroLung1 exhibited a calibration plot with overlapping points, characterized by a slope of 1.11 and a Brier score of 0.15; the Hosmer-Lemeshow test yielded a statistically significant p-value of 0.015; and the corresponding ROC AUC was 0.678 (95% CI: 0.636-0.721). The EuroLung2 model displayed better calibration, featuring fewer overlapping points in the calibration plot, with a slope of 1.22, with acceptable discrimination, as indicated by a ROC AUC of 0.756 (95% CI: 0.670-0.842). Both models failed to accurately predict morbidity and mortality outcomes in this specific health care context.
conclusionsDiscrepancies between the EuroLung model predictions and outcomes in Brazil underscore the need for model refinement and for a probe into inefficiencies in the Brazilian health care system.
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.