ReviewCurrent anesthesiology reports2018
Risk Assessment.
Review in Current anesthesiology reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Peri-operative goal-directed haemodynamic therapy and high-risk patients: what's going on? A narrative review.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Review
- Inaccurate Risk Assessment by the ACS NSQIP Risk Calculator in Aortic Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Root causes and outcomes of postoperative pulmonary complications after abdominal surgery: a retrospective observational cohort study.Patient safety in surgery · 2019Article
- Risk assessment in aortic aneurysm repair by medical specialists versus the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator outcomes.JRSM cardiovascular diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe central question of preoperative assessment is not "What can be done?" but "What should be done and how?" Predicting a patient's risk of unwanted outcomes is vital to answering this question. This review discusses risk prediction tools currently available and anticipates future developments. RECENT
findingsSimple, parsimonious risk scales and scores are being replaced by complex risk prediction models as high-capacity information systems become ubiquitous. The accuracy of risk estimation will be further increased by improved assessment of physical fitness, frailty, and incorporation of existing and novel biomarkers. However, the limitations of risk prediction for individual patient care must be recognized. SUMMARY: Risk prediction is transforming from clinical estimation to statistical science. Predictions should be used within the context of a patient's baseline risk (life expectancy independent of surgery), personal circumstances, quality of life, their expectations and values, and consideration of outcomes that are meaningful for the patient.
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.