ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2026
Risk factor analysis and nomogram model construction for mortality in patients following colonic perforation surgery.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColonic perforation is a surgical emergency with high mortality due to rapid progression to septic shock. Early identification of high-risk patients is critical for improving outcomes, yet existing predictive tools are often complex and lack clinical practicality.
aimTo identify the risk factors for postoperative mortality in patients with colonic perforation and develop and validate a predictive model.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent surgery for colonic perforation at the Department of Critical Medicine and General Surgery, Anqing Municipal Hospital, between January 2020 and July 2025. Patients were selected on the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria and were classified into two groups according to postoperative outcomes: Death and survival. General demographics, laboratory results, and imaging data were collected and compared between the two groups. Univariate analysis was performed initially, followed by multivariate logistic regression analysis for variables with significant differences in the univariate analysis. A predictive model for postoperative mortality was constructed on the basis of the multivariate results. Internal validation was conducted using the bootstrap resampling method. The clinical optimal threshold was identified through decision curve analysis (DCA), and the operability of the dual cut-off strategy was demonstrated using a full-sample confusion matrix and a funnel-type pathway diagram. A nomogram was developed as a personalized prediction tool.
resultsA total of 134 patients were included in the study, with 21 patients in the postoperative death group and 113 in the survival group, yielding a mortality rate of 15.6%. Moreover, no significant differences were found between the two groups concerning sex, history of hypertension, diabetes, cerebrovascular sequelae, cardiac history, haemoglobin level, albumin concentration, intraperitoneal free gas presence, intraperitoneal free fluid presence, perforation site, cause of perforation, operation time, or intraoperative blood loss volume. However, significant differences in age; American Society of Anaesthesiologists classification; Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score; preoperative peripheral blood white blood cell (WBC) count; platelet count; serum total bilirubin level; serum creatinine level; lactate level; C-reactive protein level; procalcitonin level; the presence of portal venous gas (PVG); and time from onset to surgery (whether > 24 hours) were detected (all
conclusionThe predictive model for postoperative mortality in patients with colonic perforation, which is based on four indicators (APACHE II score, lactate level, WBC count, and PVG presence), demonstrates strong predictive performance. The dual cut-off pathway (0.020 high-sensitivity screen + 0.121 resource-efficient confirmation) markedly reduced intensive care unit resource use while maintaining high sensitivity (95.2%). This investigation offers a replicable decision-making tool that can be integrated into information systems for future prospective studies.
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.