ArticleANZ journal of surgery
External Validation of the Auditing Fistula Risk Score for Pancreatoduodenectomy.
Article in ANZ journal of surgery. 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
backgroundPostoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) complicates 10%-25% of pancreatoduodenectomies (PDs). This study sought to validate the recent Auditing Fistula Risk Score (Auditing-FRS).
methodsPDs recorded in the 2015-2023 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) were analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression confirmed independent predictors. Discrimination was quantified using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Calibration was assessed using the Brier score, and decision-curve analysis (DCA) evaluated clinical utility across overall, open (OPD), laparoscopic (LPD), and robotic (RPD) subgroups.
resultsAmong 25 250 PDs, POPF occurred in 12.6% of cases. All Auditing-FRS predictors remained independently associated with POPF. The AUC was 0.694 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.684-0.704) for the overall cohort, with comparable performance across operative subgroups: OPD 0.693 (95% CI 0.683-0.703), LPD 0.708 (95% CI 0.672-0.745), and RPD 0.701 (95% CI 0.657-0.744). Predicted and observed POPF probabilities were closely aligned. DCA demonstrated that within the clinically relevant threshold range of 5%-30%, the Auditing-FRS consistently offered greater net benefit than treating all or no patients.
conclusionThe Auditing-FRS demonstrates acceptable discrimination and good calibration in a large NSQIP cohort across open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches, supporting its use for institutional benchmarking and perioperative risk stratification.
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.