ArticleWorld journal of surgery2017
An Online Tool for Global Benchmarking of Risk-Adjusted Surgical Outcomes.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unexpected Successes: Can We Identify Positive Deviance in Surgery?Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2023Article
- Prehabilitation program for African sub-Saharan surgical patients is an unmet need.The Pan African medical journal · 2020Article
- Epidemiology and mortality of pediatric surgical conditions: insights from a tertiary center in Uganda.Pediatric surgery international · 2019Article
- How Much Data are Good Enough? Using Simulation to Determine the Reliability of Estimating POMR for Resource-Constrained Settings.World journal of surgery · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncreasing evidence demonstrates significant variation in adverse outcomes following surgery between countries. In order to better quantify these variations, we hypothesize that freely available online risk calculators can be used as a tool to generate global benchmarking of risk-adjusted surgical outcomes.
methodsThis is a prospective cohort study conducted at an academic teaching hospital in South Africa (GSH). Consecutive adult patients undergoing major general or vascular surgery who met the ACS-NSQIP inclusion criteria for a 3-month period were included. Data variables required by the ACS risk calculator were prospectively collected, and patients were followed for 30 days post-surgery for the occurrence of endpoints. Calculating observed-to-expected ratios for ten outcome measures of interest generated risk-adjusted outcomes benchmarked against the ACS-NSQIP consortium.
resultsA total of 373 major general and vascular surgery procedures met the inclusion criteria. The GSH operative cohort varied significantly compared to the 2012 ACS-NSQIP database. The risk-adjusted O/E ratios were significant for any complication O/E 1.91 (95 % CI 1.57-2.31), surgical site infections O/E 4.76 (95 % CI 3.71-6.01), renal failure O/E 3.29 (95 % CI 1.50-6.24), death O/E 3.43 (95 % CI 2.19-5.11), and total length of stay (LOS) O/E 3.43 (95 % CI 2.19-5.11).
conclusionFreely available online risk calculators can be utilized as tools for global benchmarking of risk-adjusted surgical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27468741What 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.