ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2026
30-Day mortality risk predictors for emergency laparotomy: a comparative study.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMorbidity and mortality are significant risks associated with emergency laparotomies. A risk calculation tool facilitates the identification of high-risk patients and provides clinicians with information to help them make informed decisions. In search of an ideal scoring system that yields accurate results, we compared 30-day mortality predictions using the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA), the Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity (P-POSSUM), the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP), and the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT) risk calculators.
methodsThis retrospective study analysed data collected from adult patients who underwent emergency laparotomies between July 2018 to October 2019 at Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust. Each patient's median preoperative mortality risk was calculated using the four risk calculators: NELA, P-POSSUM, ACS-NSQIP and SORT.
resultsDuring the study period, 227 patients were eligible for inclusion, with a mean (sd) age of 65 (±16) years and a median American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 2. NELA and P-POSSUM identified 11 patients (sensitivity 73.3%) who died in the high-risk group, which was higher than the identification rates of ACS-NSQIP (53.3%) and SORT (40.0%). The average 30-day mortality risk for the 15 patients who died was 25.8% for NELA, 39.6% for P-POSSUM, 17.9% for ACS-NSQIP and 15.7% for SORT. NELA and ACS-NSQIP had the highest area under the curve at 0.869 and 0.877, respectively. Although NELA exhibited higher sensitivity (73.3%), ACS-NSQIP demonstrated greater specificity (88.7%).
conclusionsOverall, the NELA score demonstrated the highest performance in predicting mortality in emergency laparotomy.
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.