The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Development and validation of the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT)
Open accessAbstract
Background: Existing risk stratification tools have limitations and clinical experience suggests they are not used routinely. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a preoperative risk stratification tool to predict 30-day mortality after non-cardiac surgery in adults by analysis of data from the observational National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) Knowing the Risk study. Methods: The data set was split into derivation and validation cohorts. Logistic regression was used to construct a model in the derivation cohort to create the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT), which was tested in the validation cohort. Results: Prospective data for 19 097 cases in 326 hospitals were obtained from the NCEPOD study. Following exclusion of 2309, details of 16 788 patients were analysed (derivation cohort 11 219, validation cohort 5569). A model of 45 risk factors was refined on repeated regression analyses to develop a model comprising six variables: American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) grade, urgency of surgery (expedited, urgent, immediate), high-risk surgical specialty (gastrointestinal, thoracic, vascular), surgical severity (from minor to complex major), cancer and age 65 years or over. In the validation cohort, the SORT was well calibrated and demonstrated better discrimination than the ASA-PS and Surgical Risk Scale; areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were 0·91 (95 per cent c.i. 0·88 to 0·94), 0·87 (0·84 to 0·91) and 0·88 (0·84 to 0·92) respectively (P < 0·001). Conclusion: The SORT allows rapid and simple data entry of six preoperative variables, and provides a percentage mortality risk for individuals undergoing surgery.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Measuring the Accuracy of Diagnostic Systems
Swets, J. A. (1988) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3287615 · Cited by 10,058
Prospective Studies Collaboration (2009) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60318-4 · Cited by 4,807
Lee, T. H., Marcantonio, E. R., Mangione, C. M., Thomas, E. J., Polanczyk, C. A., Cook, E. F., Sugarbaker, D. J., Donaldson, M. C., Poss, R., Ho, K. K. L., et al. (1999) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.100.10.1043 · Cited by 3,771
An estimation of the global volume of surgery: a modelling strategy based on available data
Weiser, T. G., Regenbogen, S. E., Thompson, K. D., Haynes, A. B., Lipsitz, S. R., Berry, W. R., & Gawande, A. A. (2008) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(08)60878-8 · Cited by 2,511
Ashwell, M., Gunn, P., & Gibson, S. (2012) · Obesity Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1467-789x.2011.00952.x · Cited by 2,130
GRADING OF PATIENTS FOR SURGICAL PROCEDURES
Saklad, M. (1941) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/00000542-194105000-00004 · Cited by 1,956
POSSUM: A scoring system for surgical audit
Copeland, G. P., Jones, D., & Walters, M. (1991) · Journal of British Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.1800780327 · Cited by 1,709
Prognosis and prognostic research: validating a prognostic model
Altman, D. G., Vergouwe, Y., Royston, P., & Moons, K. G. M. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b605 · Cited by 1,436
Mortality after surgery in Europe: a 7 day cohort study
Pearse, R. M., Moreno, R. P., Bauer, P., Pelosi, P., Metnitz, P., Spies, C., Vallet, B., Vincent, J.-L., Hoeft, A., & Rhodes, A. (2012) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)61148-9 · Cited by 1,355
Hlatky, M. A., Greenland, P., Arnett, D. K., Ballantyne, C. M., Criqui, M. H., Elkind, M. S. V., Go, A. S., Harrell, F. E., Hong, Y., Howard, B. V., et al. (2009) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.109.192278 · Cited by 1,139
Cited by
De Hert, S., Staender, S., Fritsch, G., Hinkelbein, J., Afshari, A., Bettelli, G., Bock, M., Chew, M. S., Coburn, M., De Robertis, E., et al. (2018) · European Journal of Anaesthesiology · doi:10.1097/eja.0000000000000817 · Cited by 389
Corey, K. M., Kashyap, S., Lorenzi, E., Lagoo-Deenadayalan, S. A., Heller, K., Whalen, K., Balu, S., Heflin, M. T., McDonald, S. R., Swaminathan, M., et al. (2018) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002701 · Cited by 204
Metadata
- Authors
- Protopapa, K. L., Simpson, J. C., Smith, N. C. E., & Moonesinghe, S. R.
- Venue
- British Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2014-11-12
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 1774-1783
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W2064076120
- Cited by
- 305
- References
- 38
- FWCI
- 8.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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 and validation of the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bjs.9638
- The paper
- Protopapa, K. L., Simpson, J. C., Smith, N. C. E., & Moonesinghe, S. R. (2014). Development and validation of the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT). British Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9638
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.