Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26384501›Full record

ArticleDer Internist2015

[Screening prior to surgery and interventions].

M Hübler, A Hübler

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Internist, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

M HüblerKlinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland. matthias.huebler@uniklinikum-dresden.de.
A HüblerKlinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Routine preoperative screening is often performed but seldom indicated. The evidence for such procedures is weak or lacking. Advanced patient age is also not a reasonable trigger to initiate testing. Obtaining a detailed, standardized bleeding history, for example using a questionnaire, is much more valuable than blind testing for coagulation parameters. Of primary importance are a detailed medical history with special focus on the patient's individual fitness and a thorough physical examination. Specific blood tests may then follow. Renal function tests are indicated as routine if major surgery with intraoperative volume restriction is planned. Routine preoperative chest radiography is almost never indicated.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Tests, RoutineEvidence-Based MedicineGermanyHumansMass ScreeningMedical History TakingPhysical ExaminationPostoperative ComplicationsPreoperative CareHematologic testsKidney function testsMedical history, hemorrhagePhysical examinationRadiography, chest

Identifiers

PMID26384501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.