ArticlePerioperative medicine (London, England)2024
Anaesthesiologists' guideline adherence in pre-operative evaluation: a retrospective observational study.
Article in Perioperative medicine (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04843202 (Determining Guideline Adherence During the Premedication Visit), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Determining Guideline Adherence During the Premedication Visit
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Confirmatory Study on Costs and Time Loss from Pre-Anesthetic Consultations for Canceled Surgeries: A Retrospective Analysis at Hannover Medical School, Germany.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSurveys suggest a low level of implementation of clinical guidelines, although they are intended to improve the quality of treatment and patient safety. Which guideline recommendations are not followed and why has yet to be analysed. In this study, we investigate the proportion of European and national guidelines followed in the area of pre-operative anaesthetic evaluation prior to non-cardiac surgery.
methodsWe conducted this monocentric retrospective observational study at a German university hospital with the help of software that logically links guidelines in such a way that individualised recommendations can be derived from a patient's data. We included routine logs of 2003 patients who visited our pre-anaesthesia outpatient clinic between June 2018 and June 2020 and compared the actual conducted pre-operative examinations with the recommendations issued by the software. We descriptively analysed the data for examinations not performed that would have been recommended by the guidelines and examinations that were performed even though they were not covered by a guideline recommendation. The guidelines examined in this study are the 2018 ESAIC guidelines for pre-operative evaluation of adults undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery, the 2014 ESC/ESA guidelines on non-cardiac surgery and the German recommendations on pre-operative evaluation on non-cardiothoracic surgery from the year 2017.
resultsPerformed ECG (78.1%) and cardiac stress imaging tests (86.1%) indicated the highest guideline adherence. Greater adherence rates were associated with a higher ASA score (ASA I: 23.7%, ASA II: 41.1%, ASA III: 51.8%, ASA IV: 65.8%, P < 0.001), lower BMI and age > 65 years. Adherence rates in high-risk surgery (60.5%) were greater than in intermediate (46.5%) or low-risk (44.6%) surgery (P < 0.001). 67.2% of technical and laboratory tests performed preoperatively were not covered by a guideline recommendation.
conclusionsGuideline adherence in pre-operative evaluation leaves room for improvement. Many performed pre-operative examinations, especially laboratory tests, are not recommended by the guidelines and may cause unnecessary costs. The reasons for guidelines not being followed may be the complexity of guidelines and organisational issues. A software-based decision support tool may be helpful.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04843202.
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.