ArticleJournal of chest surgery2026
Detection of Anastomotic Leaks Following Esophagectomy with Cervical Anastomosis Using Drain Fluid Amylase Testing: A Retrospective Study in Taiwan.
Article in Journal of chest 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.
- Commentary: Drain Amylase Trend as a Noninvasive Gatekeeper for Oral Intake after Esophagectomy.Journal of chest surgery · 2026Article
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
Background: Anastomotic leak at the cervical anastomosis following esophagectomy remains a significant problem. However, diagnostic accuracy for this condition is limited, and interpretation varies. This study aimed to share our institution's experience regarding the diagnostic value of esophagram and drain fluid amylase testing. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with esophageal cancer who underwent McKeown esophagectomy. Esophagram was scheduled on postoperative day (POD) 7. Drain fluid amylase levels were measured twice, on POD 3 and POD 7. Diagnostic criteria were established based on the values measured at these time points and the relationship between them. Results: Overall, 103 patients were eligible for evaluation. Of these, 48 underwent drain fluid amylase testing, 67 underwent esophagram, and 12 received both examinations. The sensitivity and specificity of esophagram for detecting anastomotic leak were 28.6% and 95%, respectively. The positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy were 40.0%, 91.9%, and 88.1%, respectively. Among patients who underwent drain fluid amylase testing, the criteria for detecting leaks were defined as follows: (1) an increasing trend (i.e., an amylase level higher on POD 7 than on POD 3) and (2) an amylase level >80 IU/L on POD 7. The sensitivity and specificity of these criteria were 75% and 96.5%, respectively, while the positive and negative predictive values were 75% and 96.5%. The diagnostic accuracy was 93.9%. Conclusion: Compared with esophagram, drain fluid amylase testing is easier to perform and may represent a more accurate method for predicting anastomotic leak.
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.