ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2025
External validation of HAS model in predicting mortality after emergency laparotomy: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2025. 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.
- Re: External validation of HAS model in predicting mortality after emergency laparotomy.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2026Article
- Risk stratification for stroke in acute persistent vertigo: development and internal validation of a multivariable prediction model.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe aimed to externally validate the performance of the HAS model (Hajibandeh Index, American Society of Anaesthesiologists status, and sarcopenia) in predicting mortality after emergency laparotomy. We also aimed to compare the HAS model with the Parsimonious NELA (National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) risk score.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, we included adult patients who underwent emergency laparotomy between January 2022 and June 2023. The performance of the HAS score and the NELA score in predicting 30-day mortality was compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. We performed subgroup analysis for the following age groups: age ≥50, age ≥60, age ≥70, and age ≥80 years.
findingsWe included 117 patients in this study. ROC curve analysis showed that area under the curve (AUC) of the HAS score for 30-day mortality was 0.90 (95% CI 0.83-0.95). Although the AUC of HAS score was higher than the AUC of NELA score for all patients, this was not statistically significant (0.90 vs 0.80,
conclusionsThe results of the current study support the external validity of the HAS model in predicting 30-day mortality after emergency laparotomy. Prospective studies with larger sample size are required.
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.