ArticleCureus2023
A Practical Approach to Predicting Surgical Site Infection Risk Among Patients Before Leaving the Operating Room.
Article in Cureus, 2023. 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.
- SurgiCut-AI: an AI-driven tool for predicting surgical site infections following ventral hernia repair using pre- and intra-operative parameters.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- An interpretable deep learning framework for predictive modeling of postoperative infections in ICU patients.PloS one · 2026Article
- Evaluating risk factors for surgical site infections and the effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Factors Influencing Surgical Site Infections in a Tertiary Care Hospital: A Prospective Analysis.Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A surgical site infection (SSI) prediction model that identifies at-risk patients before leaving the operating room can support efforts to improve patient safety. In this study, eight pre-operative and five perioperative patient- and procedure-specific characteristics were tested with two scoring algorithms: 1) count of positive factors (manual), and 2) logistic regression model (automated). Models were developed and validated using data from 3,440 general and oncologic surgical patients. In the automated algorithm, two pre-operative (procedure urgency, odds ratio [OR]: 1.7; and antibiotic administration >2 hours before incision, OR: 1.6) and three intraoperative risk factors (open surgery [OR: 3.7], high-risk procedure [OR: 3.5], and operative time OR: [2.6]) were associated with SSI risk. The manual score achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.831 and the automated algorithm achieved AUC of 0.868. Open surgery had the greatest impact on prediction, followed by procedure risk, operative time, and procedure urgency. At 80% sensitivity, the manual and automated scores achieved a positive predictive value of 16.3% and 22.0%, respectively. Both the manual and automated SSI risk prediction algorithms accurately identified at-risk populations. Use of either model before the patient leaves the operating room can provide the clinical team with evidence-based guidance to consider proactive intervention to prevent SSIs.
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.