ArticleAnnals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery2026
Does calculating the textbook outcome based on its negative predictors enhance the transparency of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma surgery assessment?
Article in Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Backgrounds/Aims: The definition of textbook outcome (TO) for liver surgery in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) varies depending on the data and TO model utilized in the study. This study aimed to clarify the separate estimation of TO in relation to its negative predictors, using two validated TO models for ICC surgery. Methods: We assessed the rates of achieving TO and failure of TO for both models in liver resection. Independent predictors of non-TO were identified through logistic regression and validated using AUC estimation. Results: TO was achieved in a similar proportion of patients across both models: 40% and 43%. The TO models did not differ in preoperative data affecting TO achievement. Independent predictors of non-TO for both models included tumor size > 10 cm,, open surgical approach, and biliary resection. TO achievement significantly differed among sub-groups that were homogeneous concerning the opposing values of the independent predictors, regardless of the TO model. The ratio of the frequency of negative predictors in the TO and non-TO groups, referred to as the TO coefficient, determines the likelihood of achieving TO given the presence of that predictor. Predictors were ranked by their negative impact on TO achievement, from the highest risk of TO failure (tumor size > 10 cm) to the lowest risk (open approach). Conclusions: Independent predictors of non-TO may improve the transparency of TO assessment and reduce biases related to unaccounted negative prognostic factors. The impact of these independent predictors on TO realization can be estimated and ranked using TO coefficient calculations.
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.