SynthesisFrontiers in surgery2026
The effects of allostatic load on patients undergoing surgery: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Allostatic load (AL) is a measure of physiologic adaptation to repetitive environmental stressors and is associated with poor health outcomes and chronic conditions, ranging from cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes to malignancy. Given the acute rise in physiologic stress that accompanies surgically induced trauma, AL has the potential to affect surgical outcomes, particularly for the invasive, complex, lengthy procedures common in surgical oncology. The aims of this study were to systemically review existing literature surrounding AL and surgery, and to contextualize these findings accordingly. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in May 2024 via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and PsycINFO to identify existing literature on AL and surgery. Study quality and sources of bias were assessed via the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data from original studies were extracted and compiled, and a similar process was repeated for related review articles. Results: A total of 10 original research studies explored the relationship between AL and surgical topics. Eight of these studies attempted to quantify AL as either a numerical composite index or via single or multiple representative biomarkers. AL emerged as (1) a specific predictor of surgical outcomes and (2) an explanatory mechanism for racial and socioeconomic disparities in surgical populations, as AL is known to be increased in socially disadvantaged individuals. Four of 10 included studies explored surgical oncology populations exclusively. Discussion: AL appears to impact surgical care and demonstrates the potential to not only predict postoperative outcomes (i.e., postoperative complications) but also identify high-risk surgical patients. This relationship appears to be most well-defined in surgical oncology relative to any other surgical specialty. By illuminating the connections between AL and surgery, targeted interventions aimed at reducing AL may be implemented to mitigate postoperative complications and improve the quality of surgical care. Future work in this area should include prospective studies examining preoperative AL, specific postoperative outcomes, and the impact of personalized AL-centered interventions on adverse perioperative outcomes.
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.