ArticleJTCVS open2021
Harmonization of adverse events monitoring following thoracic surgery: Pursuit of a common language and methodology.
Article in JTCVS open, 2021. 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.
- Index hospital cost of adverse events following thoracic surgery: a systematic review of economic literature.BMJ open · 2023Pooled it
- Multi-Modal Prehabilitation in Thoracic Surgery: From Basic Concepts to Practical Modalities.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Multicentre positive deviance to reduce adverse events and length of stay after pulmonary resection.BMJ open quality · 2023Article
- Article
- Commentary: One system to rule them all.JTCVS open · 2021Article
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
Objective: Thoracic surgery carries significant risk of postoperative adverse events (AEs). Multiple international recording systems are used to define and collect AEs following thoracic surgery procedures. We hypothesized that a simple-yet-ubiquitous approach to AE documentation could be developed to allow universal data entry into separate international databases. Methods: AE definitions of the Canadian Association of Thoracic Surgeons (CATS) system and 4 international databases were matched and compared. This consisted of reviewing the definition of each AE as described by their respective database and assessing compatibility with the CATS system. We developed a single set of 4 drop-down menus to enable clear classification and facilitated data entry, using 3 single-select mandatory lists and 1 multiselect optional list classifying type and severity of these events. Results: The CATS data elements were harmonized (ie, perfect or good) with 100% (European Society of Thoracic Surgeons), 89% (Society of Thoracic Surgeons), 74% (Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group), and 73% (National Surgical Quality Improvement Program) of respective data elements. The addition of 17 AEs and 2 complication modifiers to the CATS system was implemented to achieve complete harmonization. Consequently, 100% of AE data elements currently included in all 4 international databases are perfectly or well-harmonized with the revised 4-choice drop down menu. Conclusions: We describe a framework for a ubiquitously applicable approach to AE monitoring following thoracic surgery harmonized with AE definitions of all major thoracic international associations. Use of this AE collection framework allows for comprehensive evaluation of both the incidence and severity of all AEs after thoracic surgery along with quality indicators.
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.