ArticlePediatric surgery international2024
GAPS phase II: development and pilot results of the global assessment in pediatric surgery, an evidence-based pediatric surgical capacity assessment tool for low-resource settings.
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global challenges and perspectives in acute and emergency general surgery in low and middle-income countries: a scoping review.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Pediatric surgery in Burkina Faso: capacity, gaps, and challenges.Pediatric surgery international · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePediatric surgical care in low- and middle-income countries is often hindered by systemic gaps in healthcare resources, infrastructure, training, and organization. This study aims to develop and validate the Global Assessment of Pediatric Surgery (GAPS) to appraise pediatric surgical capacity and discriminate between levels of care across diverse healthcare settings.
methodsThe GAPS Version 1 was constructed through a synthesis of existing assessment tools and expert panel consultation. The resultant GAPS Version 2 underwent international pilot testing. Construct validation categorized institutions into providing basic or advanced surgical care. GAPS was further refined to Version 3 to include only questions with a > 75% response rate and those that significantly discriminated between basic or advanced surgical settings.
resultsGAPS Version 1 included 139 items, which, after expert panel feedback, was expanded to 168 items in Version 2. Pilot testing, in 65 institutions, yielded a high response rate. Of the 168 questions in GAPS Version 2, 64 significantly discriminated between basic and advanced surgical care. The refined GAPS Version 3 tool comprises 64 questions on: human resources (9), material resources (39), outcomes (3), accessibility (3), and education (10).
conclusionThe GAPS Version 3 tool presents a validated instrument for evaluating pediatric surgical capabilities in low-resource settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38896255What 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.