ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2025
Is the Parsimonious Eurolung risk model a good predictor for all populations? An external validation study.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOver 20 models have been developed in the last 30 years to predict postoperative mortality after thoracic surgery. The Parsimonious Eurolung score, introduced by Brunelli et al. in 2019, is a simplified logistic regression model for predicting perioperative morbidity (EuroLung1) and mortality (EuroLung2) based on the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS) database. While validated for European populations, no studies have confirmed its applicability in other populations with different backgrounds.
objectivesTo externally validate the Parsimonious Eurolung risk models using a Portuguese cohort of patients undergoing lung cancer resection.
methodsThis retrospective analysis included patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who underwent resection surgery at a Portuguese centre between January 2018 and December 2021. The Parsimonious Eurolung 1 (morbidity) and Parsimonious Eurolung 2 (mortality) models were used to predict morbidity and 30-day mortality. Model validation assessed calibration, discrimination, and clinical usefulness.
resultsA total of 410 patients were included. 4 (1.25%) patients died within 30 days. Mortality did not differ between types of surgery. 78 patients experienced significant morbidity, with pneumonectomies associated with highest morbidity rates. The mean Parsimonious Eurolung 1 score (morbidity) was 13.49% (SD 6.84) and the mean Parsimonious Eurolung 2 score (mortality) was 2.17% (SD 2.13). Morbidity scores differed significantly across years (p = 0.011) and were significantly higher in patients with complications (p < 0.001). For Parsimonious Eurolung 1, an AUC of 0.668 was calculated, with the calibration plot showing an underestimation for mid-range values and significant overfitting. For Parsimonious Eurolung 2, an AUC of 0.437 was obtained, showing gross underestimation of values.
conclusionsExternal validation was partially achieved. The Parsimonious Eurolung 1 score is moderately applicable for morbidity. The Parsimonious Eurolung 2 score is not validated for 30-day mortality in this cohort. It should not guide surgical eligibility, and this point can be generalized to other low-mortality settings. This study provides valuable insights into the performance of the Parsimonious Eurolung models in a specific national context while highlighting the ongoing challenges in risk prediction for thoracic surgery. The findings suggest a need for quality multicentric databases and more granular, population-specific risk models, potentially incorporating machine learning approaches.
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.