Observational studySurgical infections2014
Can we define surgical site infection accurately in colorectal surgery?
Observational study in Surgical infections, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Technological Advances in Clinical Definition and Surveillance Methodology for Surgical Site Infection Incorporating Surgical Site Imaging and Patient-Generated Health Data.Surgical infections · 2019Pooled it
- A Prognostic Model of Surgical Site Infection Using Daily Clinical Wound Assessment.Journal of the American College of Surgeons · 2016Trial
- The augmented value of using clinical notes in semi-automated surveillance of deep surgical site infections after colorectal surgery.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2023Observational
- Inter-rater agreement of CDC criteria and ASEPSIS score in assessing surgical site infections after cesarean section: a prospective observational study.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Reliability and validity of multicentre surveillance of surgical site infections after colorectal surgery.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2022Observational
- Remote diagnosis of surgical-site infection using a mobile digital intervention: a randomised controlled trial in emergency surgery patients.NPJ digital medicine · 2021Article
- A Comparative Analysis of Surgical Wound Infection Methods: Predictive Values of the CDC, ASEPSIS, and Southampton Scoring Systems in Evaluating Breast Reconstruction Surgical Site Infections.Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.) · 2019Article
- Open Surgical Incisions After Colorectal Surgery Improve Quality Metrics, But Do Patients Benefit?Diseases of the colon and rectum · 2018Article
- The need for unique risk adjustment for surgical site infections at a high-volume, tertiary care center with inherent high-risk colorectal procedures.Techniques in coloproctology · 2017Article
- Wound Concerns and Healthcare Consumption of Resources after Colorectal Surgery: An Opportunity for Innovation?Surgical infections · 2017Observational
- Detection of clinically important colorectal surgical site infection using Bayesian network.The Journal of surgical research · 2017Article
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
Abstract
backgroundIncreasingly, surgical site infection (SSI) is being tied to quality of care. The incidence of SSI after colorectal surgery differs widely. We hypothesize that it is difficult to define SSI reliably and reproducibly when adhering to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definitions.
methodsElective intra-abdominal colorectal procedures via a clean-contaminated incision performed at a single institution between January 1 and May 1, 2011 were queried. Three attending surgeons examined all patients' records retrospectively for documentation of SSI. These data were compared with the institutional National Surgeon Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data with regard to deep and superficial incisional SSI.
resultsSeventy-one cases met the inclusion criteria. There were six SSIs identified by NSQIP, representing 8.4% of cases. Review of the three attending surgeons demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of SSI, at 27%, 38%, and 23% (p=0.002). The percent of overall agreement between all reviewers was 82.16 with a kappa of 0.64, indicating only modest inter-rater agreement. Lack of attending surgeon documentation and subjective differences in chart interpretation accounted for most discrepancies between the surgeon and NSQIP SSI capture rates.
conclusionsThis study highlights the difficulty in defining SSI in colon and rectal surgery, which oftentimes is subjective and difficult to discern from the medical record. According to these preliminary data from our institution, there is poor reliability between clinical reviewers in defining SSI on the basis of the CDC criteria, which has serious implications. The interpretation of clinical trials may be jeopardized if we cannot define SSI accurately. Furthermore, according to current CDC definitions and infection tracking strategies, these data suggest that the institutional incidence of SSI may not be a reliable measure by which to compare institutions. Better methods for defining SSI should be implemented if these data are made publicly available and tied to performance measures.
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.