Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 346

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development of a dedicated risk-adjustment scoring system for colorectal surgery (colorectal POSSUM)

Open access
Tekkis, P P, Prytherch, D R, Kocher, H M, Senapati, A, Poloniecki, J D, Stamatakis, J D, Windsor, A C J·2004·British Journal of Surgery

Abstract

Background: The aim of the study was to develop a dedicated colorectal Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity (CR-POSSUM) equation for predicting operative mortality, and to compare its performance with the Portsmouth (P)-POSSUM model. Methods: Data were collected prospectively from 6883 patients undergoing colorectal surgery in 15 UK hospitals between 1993 and 2001. After excluding missing data and 93 patients who did not satisfy the inclusion criteria, 4632 patients (68·2 per cent) underwent elective surgery and 2107 had an emergency operation (31·0 per cent); 2437 operations (35·9 per cent) for malignant and 4267 (62·8 per cent) for non-malignant diseases were scored. Stepwise logistic regression analysis was used to develop an age-adjusted POSSUM model and a dedicated CR-POSSUM model. A 60 : 40 per cent split-sample validation technique was adopted for model development and testing. Observed and expected mortality rates were compared. Results: The operative mortality rate for the series was 5·7 per cent (387 of 6790 patients) (elective operations 2·8 per cent; emergency surgery 12·0 per cent). The CR-POSSUM, age-adjusted POSSUM and P-POSSUM models had similar areas under the receiver–operator characteristic curves. Model calibration was similar for CR-POSSUM and age-adjusted POSSUM models, and superior to that for the P-POSSUM model. The CR-POSSUM model offered the best overall accuracy, with an observed: expected ratio of 1·000, 0·998 and 0·911 respectively (test population). Conclusion: The CR-POSSUM model provided an accurate predictor of operative mortality. External validation is required in hospitals different from those in which the model was developed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bjs.4430

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 19 references

Cited by

See all 346

Metadata

Authors
Tekkis, P. P., Prytherch, D. R., Kocher, H. M., Senapati, A., Poloniecki, J. D., Stamatakis, J. D., & Windsor, A. C. J.
Venue
British Journal of Surgery
Published
2004-07-26
Volume
91
Issue
9
Pages
1174-1182
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
OpenAlex
W2126185271
Cited by
346
References
19
FWCI
7.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Development of a dedicated risk-adjustment scoring system for colorectal surgery (colorectal POSSUM). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bjs.4430
The paper
Tekkis, P. P., Prytherch, D. R., Kocher, H. M., Senapati, A., Poloniecki, J. D., Stamatakis, J. D., & Windsor, A. C. J. (2004). Development of a dedicated risk-adjustment scoring system for colorectal surgery (colorectal POSSUM). British Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.4430

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.