ArticleBMC surgery2025
Development and validation of a preoperative predictive scoring system for esophageal perforation induced by fishbones.
Article in BMC 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFishbones are the most common esophageal foreign bodies, with perforation representing their most severe complication. However, reliable tools to preoperatively predict perforation risk are lacking. This study aimed to develop and validate a practical scoring system for this purpose.
methodsA multi-center retrospective study enrolled 1,248 patients with fishbone-related esophageal foreign bodies, randomly divided into training (n = 512), internal validation (n = 220), and external validation cohorts (n = 516). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression identified independent risk factors for perforation. A scoring system was constructed by weighting regression coefficients. Performance was assessed using the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and predictive values.
resultsEsophageal perforation occurred in 12.7% (159/1,248) of patients. Three independent predictors were identified: fishbone length ≥ 2.0 cm (2 points), lodgment duration ≥ 24 h (1 point), and forced swallowing (1 point). The system demonstrated strong discrimination, with AUCs of 0.863 (internal) and 0.829 (external). Risk stratification revealed perforation rates of 9.9% (low-risk: 0–2 points), 83.3% (intermediate-risk: 3 points), and 100.0% (high-risk: 4 points) in internal validation, and 8.6%, 63.6%, and 100.0% in external validation.
conclusionThis scoring system, incorporating fishbone length, lodgment duration, and forced swallowing, shows promising performance in predicting esophageal perforation risk and may assist in preoperative risk stratification. Further validation in broader populations is warranted to confirm its clinical utility.
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.