ArticleJournal of surgical oncology2024
Comparison of a Risk Calculator With Frailty Indices in Patients Undergoing Lung Cancer Resection.
Article in Journal of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The predictive value of multidimensional frailty instruments for postoperative adverse outcomes in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWhile frailty has gained attention for its utility in risk stratification, no studies have directly compared them to existing risk calculators. The objective of this study was to compare the risk stratification of the American College of Surgeons Surgical Risk Calculator (ACS-SRC), the Revised Risk Analysis Index (RAI-rev), and the Modified Frailty Index (5-mFI). The primary outcomes were 30-day postoperative morbidity, 30-day postoperative mortality, unplanned readmission, unplanned reoperation, and discharge disposition other than home.
methodsPatients undergoing anatomic lung resection for primary, nonsmall cell lung cancer were identified within the ACS National Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database. Tools were compared for discrimination in the primary outcomes.
results9663 patients undergoing anatomic lung resection for cancer between 2012 and 2014 were included. The cohort was 53.1% female. Median age at diagnosis was 67 (IQR 59-74) years. Perioperative morbidity and mortality rates were 10.9% (n = 1048) and 1.6% (n = 158). Rates of 30-day postoperative unplanned readmission and reoperation were 7.5% (n = 725) and 4.8% (n = 468). The ACS-SRC had the highest discrimination for all measured outcomes, as measured by the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) and corresponding confidence interval (95% CI). This included perioperative mortality (AUC 0.74, 95% CI 0.71-0.78), compared to RAI-rev (AUC 0.66, 95% CI 0.62-0.69) and 5-mFI (AUC 0.61, 95% CI 0.57-0.65; p < 0.001). The RAI-rev and 5-mFI had similar discrimination for all measured outcomes.
conclusionACS-SRC was the perioperative risk stratification tool with the highest predictive discrimination for adverse, 30-day, postoperative events for patients with cancer treated with anatomic 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.