The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Surgeons lack predictive accuracy for anastomotic leakage in gastrointestinal surgery
Open accessAbstract
The dramatic clinical consequences of anastomotic leakage in gastrointestinal surgery can be reduced by a diverting stoma or drainage of the peri-anastomotic area. Currently, the surgeons’ clinical judgement is of major importance in decision making, but reliable data of the diagnostic accuracy are lacking. In this prospective clinical study, the surgeons’ predictive accuracy for anastomotic leakage was evaluated. In 191 patients undergoing colorectal resection with anastomosis, the risk for anastomotic leakage was determined by the surgeon on the basis of a visual analogue scale (VAS). This risk assessment was compared to the actual occurrence of anastomotic leakage post-operatively. A total of 26 (13.6%) patients showed anastomotic leakage. The surgeons’ median predicted leakage rate was 7.1% in anastomoses >15 cm from the anal verge and 9.5% ≤15 cm (sensitivity 38/62%, specificity 46/52%). Diagnostic accuracy was not influenced by the surgeons’ training level (VAS score, surgeons 7.8% vs assistant surgeons 8.5%, p = 0.96, sensitivity 41% vs 44%, specificity 59% vs 48%, p = 0.20). The surgeons’ clinical risk assessment appeared to have a low predictive value for anastomotic leakage in gastrointestinal surgery. The low a priori risk of anastomotic leakage of 14% resulted in a low post-test odds (11%) of correct prediction of anastomotic leakage. This warrants the ongoing search for a better diagnostic test of anastomotic leakage to prevent morbidity and mortality.
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
Matthiessen, P., Hallböök, O., Rutegård, J., Simert, G., & Sjödahl, R. (2007) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e3180603024 · Cited by 1,123
Cited by
Jafari, M. D., Lee, K. H., Halabi, W. J., Mills, S. D., Carmichael, J. C., Stamos, M. J., & Pigazzi, A. (2013) · Surgical Endoscopy · doi:10.1007/s00464-013-2832-8 · Cited by 337
van Manen, L., Handgraaf, H. J. M., Diana, M., Dijkstra, J., Ishizawa, T., Vahrmeijer, A. L., & Mieog, J. S. D. (2018) · Journal of Surgical Oncology · doi:10.1002/jso.25105 · Cited by 322
How to assess intestinal viability during surgery: A review of techniques
Urbanavičius, L. (2011) · World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery · doi:10.4240/wjgs.v3.i5.59 · Cited by 235
Enhanced-Reality Video Fluorescence: A Real-Time Assessment of Intestinal Viability
Diana, M., Noll, E., Diemunsch, P., Dallemagne, B., Benahmed, M. A., Agnus, V., Soler, L., Barry, B., Namer, I. J., Demartines, N., et al. (2014) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e31828d4ab3 · Cited by 168
Matsui, A., Winer, J. H., Laurence, R. G., & Frangioni, J. V. (2011) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.7698 · Cited by 69
Metadata
- Authors
- Karliczek, A., Harlaar, N. J., Zeebregts, C. J., Wiggers, T., Baas, P. C., & van Dam, G. M.
- Venue
- International Journal of Colorectal Disease
- Published
- 2009-02-17
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 569-576
- ISSN
- 0179-1958 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-1262
- OpenAlex
- W1987582597
- Cited by
- 464
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.43
- 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: Surgeons lack predictive accuracy for anastomotic leakage in gastrointestinal surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00384-009-0658-6
- The paper
- Karliczek, A., Harlaar, N. J., Zeebregts, C. J., Wiggers, T., Baas, P. C., & van Dam, G. M. (2009). Surgeons lack predictive accuracy for anastomotic leakage in gastrointestinal surgery. International Journal of Colorectal Disease. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-009-0658-6
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.