ArticleZhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences2022
Establishment of Thoracic Surgical Difficulty Assessment Scale based on Delphi method.
Article in Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Technical guideline for intra-prepontine cisternal drug delivery via spinal puncture through subarachnoid catheterization.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2024Guideline
- [Development and psychometric validation of the User Experience Scale for Artificial Intelligence QuestionZhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2026Article
- [Construction of an evaluation indicator system for standardized prevention and control of type 1 diabetes mellitus].Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe difficulty of surgery, which is related to surgical safety, has only been mentioned as a subjective perception for a long time. There are few studies to quantitatively and systematically evaluate the difficulty of thoracic surgery. This study aims to establish a quantitative evaluation index system for thoracic surgical difficulty, and to evaluate its reliability and validity.
methodsDuring the 2 national thoracic surgery academic conferences, the factors that may affect the difficulty of thoracic surgery were evaluated by the thoracic surgeons via semi open questionnaires, and then the evaluation item pool of thoracic surgery difficulty was established. The importance of each indicator in the evaluation item pool was graded by 2 rounds of Delphi method. The average score, full score rate and coefficient of variation of each index were calculated, and the composite index method was used to decide whether to delete the indicator.Finally, the difficulty evaluation scale of thoracic surgery was constructed. The surgical data of patients with thoracic tumors were collected. The scale was used to evaluate the difficulty of thoracic surgery for lung, esophageal, and mediastinal tumors. The reliability and validity of the scale were evaluated by the commonly used difficulty evaluation indexes: Operation time, intraoperative estimated blood loss, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), side injury rate, and blood transfusion rate as standards.
resultsA total of 230 questionnaires were distributed in the 2 rounds of survey, and 149 valid questionnaires were collected after eliminating duplicate questionnaires. Through 2 rounds of Delphi consultation with 20 experts, the difficulty evaluation indexes were scored and screened, and the difficulty evaluation scale of thoracic surgery was established. It included 5 main indexes (surgical decision-making, operation space, separation interface, reconstruction method, and surgical materials) and 16 secondary indexes [American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, surgical trauma, operator experience, space size, space depth, space source, space adjacent, interface content, anatomical gap, visual field, interface size, reconstruction complexity, reconstruction scope, autologous materials, artificial biomaterials and instruments]. After weighting, the total score of Thoracic Surgery Difficulty Evaluation Scale was from 1 to 3. A Score at 1 standed for simplicity, and score at 3 standed for difficulty. Further data were collected for 127 cases of thoracic tumor surgery. The difficulty scores of surgery for lung, esophageal, and mediastinal tumor were 1.69±0.26, 1.86±0.18, and 1.56±0.31, respectively, and the Cronbach's α coefficients of the scale in 3 tumor surgeries were 0.993, 0.974, and 0.989, repectively, and the Spearman Brown coefficients were 0.996, 0.984, and 0.996, respectively. The Spearman correlation coefficients of operation difficulty score with operation time, estimated blood loss, and VAS were 0.360 and 0.634, 0.632 and 0.578, 0.696 and 0.875, respectively (all
conclusionsThe quantitative Thoracic Surgical Difficulty Assessment Scale has been successfully established, which shows good reliability and validity in thoracic tumor surgery. The Thoracic Surgical Difficulty Assessment Scale has broad application prospects in reducing the difficulty of the surgery, controlling surgical complications, and training surgeons.
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.