ArticleBMC surgery2026
External validation and logistic recalibration of POSSUM and P-POSSUM for predicting postoperative morbidity and mortality after elective hepatic resection.
Article in BMC surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate preoperative risk assessment remains critical in hepatobiliary surgery. Established prediction models, such as POSSUM and P-POSSUM, have shown variable performance when applied to specialized procedures. This study externally validated and recalibrated both models to predict postoperative morbidity and mortality after elective hepatic resection.
methodsAll consecutive adult patients who underwent elective hepatic resection at the University Hospital Regensburg between December 2020 and December 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. POSSUM and P-POSSUM scores were calculated using the original logistic equations. Major morbidity (Clavien–Dindo ≥ IIIa) and in-hospital mortality were the predefined outcomes. Model discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and calibration was evaluated using the Brier score, calibration-in-the-large (intercept), calibration slope, and out-of-bag (OOB) calibration plots derived from 1,000 bootstrap resamples. Logistic recalibration was applied to adjust the model intercepts (α) and slopes (β). The clinical utility was evaluated using decision curve analysis.
resultsOf the 200 elective hepatectomies assessed, six were excluded due to missing required physiological inputs, yielding 194 patients with computable predictions. Clinically relevant morbidity (Clavien–Dindo ≥ II) occurred in 146/194 (75.3%) patients, major morbidity (≥ IIIa) in 73/194 (37.6%), and in-hospital mortality in 15/194 (7.7%). Discrimination was fair for morbidity and higher for mortality: AUC 0.696 (95% CI 0.595–0.789) for clinically relevant morbidity, AUC 0.697 (95% CI 0.620–0.764) for major morbidity, and AUC 0.755 (95% CI 0.647–0.851) for in-hospital mortality. OOB bootstrap calibration showed slopes below 1 for all endpoints (clinically relevant morbidity: α 0.16, β 0.837, Brier 0.172; major morbidity: α − 0.051, β 0.907, Brier 0.215; mortality: α − 0.34, β 0.843, Brier 0.068), supporting the need for local model updating.
conclusionPOSSUM and P-POSSUM can support perioperative risk prediction after hepatic resection when they are locally recalibrated and internally validated. Bootstrap-corrected recalibration yielded stable performance without evidence of overfitting, and decision curve analysis suggested clinical utility across relevant threshold probabilities. These findings support the use of POSSUM-based models in hepatobiliary surgery, provided that centers perform local validation and model updating before implementation in clinical decision-making.
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.