Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27188832›Full record

Trial reportJournal of the American College of Surgeons2016

A Prognostic Model of Surgical Site Infection Using Daily Clinical Wound Assessment.

Patrick C Sanger, Gabrielle H van Ramshorst, Ezgi Mercan, Shuai Huang, Andrea L Hartzler, Cheryl A L Armstrong, Ross J Lordon, William B Lober, Heather L Evans

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

9 authors.

Patrick C SangerDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Electronic address: psanger@uw.edu.
Gabrielle H van RamshorstDepartment of Surgery, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Ezgi MercanDepartment of Computer Science, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Shuai HuangDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Andrea L HartzlerGroup Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, WA.
Cheryl A L ArmstrongDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Ross J LordonDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
William B LoberDepartment of Biobehavioral Nursing and Health Systems, and Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Heather L EvansDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Funding

University of Washington Biomedical Informatics and Data Science Research Training ProgramT15LM007442 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI JOHN H. GENNARI, Andrea L. Hartzler · 2002 to 2026
$19.6M
NRSA Training CoreTL1TR002318 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Megan Moore · 2017 to 2026
$8.4M
Institute of Translational Health SciencesTL1TR000422 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI DISIS, MARY L. · 2012 to 2016
$2.1M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR000422NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR002318NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007442
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgical site infection (SSI) remains a common, costly, and morbid health care-associated infection. Early detection can improve outcomes, yet previous risk models consider only baseline risk factors (BF) not incorporating a proximate and timely data source-the wound itself. We hypothesize that incorporation of daily wound assessment improves the accuracy of SSI identification compared with traditional BF alone. STUDY

designA prospective cohort of 1,000 post open abdominal surgery patients at an academic teaching hospital were examined daily for serial features (SF), for example, wound characteristics and vital signs, in addition to standard BF, for example, wound class. Using supervised machine learning, we trained 3 Naïve Bayes classifiers (BF, SF, and BF+SF) using patient data from 1 to 5 days before diagnosis to classify SSI on the following day. For comparison, we also created a simplified SF model that used logistic regression. Control patients without SSI were matched on 5 similar consecutive postoperative days to avoid confounding by length of stay. Accuracy, sensitivity/specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were calculated on a training and hold-out testing set.

resultsOf 851 patients, 19.4% had inpatient SSIs. Univariate analysis showed differences in C-reactive protein, surgery duration, and contamination, but no differences in American Society of Anesthesiologists scores, diabetes, or emergency surgery. The BF, SF, and BF+SF classifiers had area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of 0.67, 0.76, and 0.76, respectively. The best-performing classifier (SF) had optimal sensitivity of 0.80, specificity of 0.64, positive predictive value of 0.35, and negative predictive value of 0.93. Features most associated with subsequent SSI diagnosis were granulation degree, exudate amount, nasogastric tube presence, and heart rate.

conclusionsSerial features provided moderate positive predictive value and high negative predictive value for early identification of SSI. Addition of baseline risk factors did not improve identification. Features of evolving wound infection are discernable before the day of diagnosis, based primarily on visual inspection.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesAdultAgedBayes TheoremFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsROC CurveSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID27188832
PMCPMC4961603

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.