ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2025
Comparing Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group (GCCG) and Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) Classifications in Reporting Postoperative Complications After Gastrectomy: A Population-Based Nationwide Study in Finland.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic nutritional index is associated with severe postoperative complications after neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study with threshold effect analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- A unified framework for postoperative complications after gastrectomy for gastric cancer: insights from the Korean Quality Improvement Platform in Surgery program.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2026Article
- ASO Author Reflections: Future of Reporting Complications After Gastric Cancer Surgery.Annals of surgical oncology · 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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreviously, no international consensus on reporting complications after gastric cancer surgery existed, making comparisons between studies difficult. In 2015 the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) published a standardized list for classification of postoperative complications after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, which also was applied for gastric cancer. In 2019 the Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group (GCCG) reported outcomes after gastrectomy for gastric cancer with a list of different complication types. This study aimed to compare the two classifications in reporting postoperative outcomes after gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
methodsThis population-based study, based on the Finnish National Esophago-Gastric Cancer Cohort, included all patients age 18 years or older undergoing gastrectomy for gastric cancer in Finland during 2010-2016. For classifying and describing different postoperative outcomes, both the ECCG and GCCG lists of complications were used separately.
resultsThe study analyzed 1115 patients. The occurrence of complications 90 days postoperatively was 23.0% according to the GCCG classification (504 individual complications) and 43.0% according to the ECCG classification (1084 individual complications). Most of the notable differences between the classifications in reporting complications were in cardiac dysrhythmia, infections, and myocardial infarction, with the GCCG classification reporting a lower incidence. Additionally, 131 complications occurring in 13 individual types of complications defined only in the ECCG and not in the GCCG were recorded.
conclusionsThis study suggests that the ECCG classification is more comprehensive and sensitive in evaluating complications of gastrectomy than the GCCG classification. Use of the ECCG classification may be preferable in the context of gastrectomy.
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.