ArticleAnesthesiology2016
Convergent Validity of Three Methods for Measuring Postoperative Complications.
Article in Anesthesiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inconsistency in UK Biobank Event Definitions From Different Data Sources and Its Impact on Bias and Generalizability: A Case Study of Venous Thromboembolism.American journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Use of Machine Learning to Develop and Evaluate Models Using Preoperative and Intraoperative Data to Identify Risks of Postoperative Complications.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Reframing Quality of Care Discussions in Surgery: Shifting from Surgeon Focus to Patient Perspectives.Annals of surgical oncology · 2020Article
- Perceived occurrence of an adverse event affects patient-reported outcomes after total hip replacement.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- Autonomous detection, grading, and reporting of postoperative complications using natural language processing.Surgery · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on byIn Reply.2017
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnesthesiologists need tools to accurately track postoperative outcomes. The accuracy of patient report in identifying a wide variety of postoperative complications after diverse surgical procedures has not previously been investigated.
methodsIn this cohort study, 1,578 adult surgical patients completed a survey at least 30 days after their procedure asking if they had experienced any of 18 complications while in the hospital after surgery. Patient responses were compared to the results of an automated electronic chart review and (for a random subset of 750 patients) to a manual chart review. Results from automated chart review were also compared to those from manual chart review. Forty-two randomly selected patients were contacted by telephone to explore reasons for discrepancies between patient report and manual chart review.
resultsComparisons between patient report, automated chart review, and manual chart review demonstrated poor-to-moderate positive agreement (range, 0 to 58%) and excellent negative agreement (range, 82 to 100%). Discordance between patient report and manual chart review was frequently explicable by patients reporting events that happened outside the time period of interest.
conclusionsPatient report can provide information about subjective experiences or events that happen after hospital discharge, but often yields different results from chart review for specific in-hospital complications. Effective in-hospital communication with patients and thoughtful survey design may increase the quality of patient-reported complication data.
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.