ArticleSurgery open science2025
Prediction of mortality after esophagectomy: A comprehensive analysis of various risk scores in a national esophageal center.
Article in Surgery open science, 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.
- Development and validation of a clinically interpretable risk scoring system for predicting one-year all-cause mortality in esophageal cancer: a population-based study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Organ-sparing management of luminal gastrointestinal cancers: current and emerging approaches.Internal medicine journal · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Esophagectomy remains the cornerstone treatment for esophageal cancer but is associated with significant perioperative morbidity and mortality, even in specialized centers. Accurate preoperative risk assessment is crucial to improve patient outcomes, and various predictive models are available for risk stratification. This study aimed to validate and compare the performance of nine established predictive models in forecasting 30-day mortality following esophagectomy in a high-volume esophageal cancer center. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed of 101 patients who underwent esophagectomy between January 2020 and December 2023 was performed. Clinicopathological characteristics and mortality data were obtained. The predictive accuracy of nine risk models, including the Esophageal-POSSUM (O-POSSUM), Charlson Comorbidity Index (Charlson), Postoperative Estimation of Risk (PER), and Fuchs scores, was assessed using logistic regression, Hosmer-Lemeshow tests for calibration, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for discrimination. Mann-Whitney Results: The 30-day mortality rate was 8.91 %. The O-POSSUM and Charlson scores demonstrated the highest predictive accuracy with AUCs of 0.832 and 0.806, respectively. The PER and Fuchs models also showed significant associations with mortality but with moderate predictive ability. Models such as the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and Philadelphia scores demonstrated limited predictive utility. Significant differences in predictive performance were noted across patient subgroups. Conclusions: The O-POSSUM and Charlson scores were reliable tools for predicting 30-day mortality after esophagectomy. Other models require further validation and refinement. Tailoring risk assessment models in specific clinical settings may enhance their predictive accuracy and contribute to improved patient outcomes.
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.