Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31128879›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of anaesthesia2019

Systematic review and consensus definitions for the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative: clinical indicators.

Guy Haller, Sohail Bampoe, Tim Cook, Lee A Fleisher, Michael P W Grocott, Mark Neuman, David Story, Paul S Myles, StEP-COMPAC Group

Abstract readSystematic ReviewConsensus Statement
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of anaesthesia, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

Guy HallerDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland; Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: Guy.Haller@hcuge.ch.
Sohail BampoeCentre for Perioperative Medicine, University College London, UK.
Tim CookDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK.
Lee A FleisherDepartments of Anesthesiology and Critical Care and Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Michael P W GrocottIntegrative Physiology and Critical Illness Group, Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, UK; Anaesthesia, Perioperative and Critical Care Research Group, Southampton NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Mark NeumanDepartments of Anesthesiology and Critical Care and Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
David StoryCentre for Integrated Critical Care, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Paul S MylesDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Anaesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Alfred Hospital and Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
StEP-COMPAC Group

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2015-08-023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical indicators are powerful tools to quantify the safety and quality of patient care. Their validity is often unclear and definitions extremely heterogeneous. As part of the International Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative, this study aimed to derive a set of standardised and valid clinical outcome indicators for use in perioperative clinical trials.

methodsWe identified clinical indicators via a systematic review of the anaesthesia and perioperative medicine literature (PubMed/OVID, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library). We performed a three-stage Delphi consensus-gaining process that involved 54 clinician-researchers worldwide. Indicators were first shortlisted and the most suitable definitions for evaluation of quality and safety interventions determined. Indicators were then assessed for validity, reliability, feasibility, and clarity.

resultsWe identified 167 clinical outcome indicators. Participation in the three Delphi rounds was 100% (n=13), 68% (n=54), and 85% (n= 6), respectively. A final list of eight outcome indicators was generated: surgical site infection at 30 days, stroke within 30 days of surgery, death within 30 days of coronary artery bypass grafting, death within 30 days of surgery, admission to the intensive care unit within 14 days of surgery, readmission to hospital within 30 days of surgery, and length of hospital stay (with or without in-hospital mortality). They were rated by the majority of experts as valid, reliable, easy to use, and clearly defined.

conclusionsThese clinical indicators can be confidently used as endpoints in clinical trials measuring quality, safety, and improvement in perioperative care. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016042102 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php? ID=CRD42016042102).

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient SafetyPerioperative CareQuality of Health CareReference StandardsReproducibility of Resultsclinical indicatorsclinical trialsoutcome measurespatient safetyperioperative medicinequality improvementstandardised endpoint

Identifiers

PMID31128879
PMCPMC6676244

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.