ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2024
Prevalence, impact and associated factors of abnormal preoperative investigation result in patients undergoing surgery in Dilla University referral hospital: cross-sectional study.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: As one domain of preoperative assessment, preoperative investigations are often ordered to evaluate patient's medical condition for risk stratification and assessing patient status to undergoing surgery. Despite the fact that laboratory testing can assist in ensuring the best possible preoperative condition, routine screening examinations have a number of drawbacks. Although there are evidence-based recommendations for which investigations should be done, the tradition of routine preoperative testing is still prevalent and clinical practice with abnormal results detected varies. Method: Institution-based cross-sectional study design was conducted from 1 November to January at Dilla University Referral Hospital. Data was collected from complete pre-anaesthesia check-up sheets, investigations already done. It was collected at the individual level by using, closed-ended self-guided questionnaire. The collected data was entered, cleaned, edited and checked using SPSS version 26 for data processing and analysis. Logistic regression was performed to examine the impacts of abnormal preoperative investigation results and summarised by using tables and figures. An Adjusted odds ratio with 95% CI was computed to determine the level of significance. Result: Data of 208 patients (65.9 female) with mean±standard deviation age 30.83±15.340 years and 22.59±2.99 BMI were analysed. Patients were mostly American Society of Anaesthesiologists I and II underwent National Institute of Clinical and Health Excellence Grade 2 surgeries and surgical shape class 3. Totally, 178 (44.5%) test results were abnormal. CBC is the most detected abnormal result. Only 15 (3.75%) abnormalities had an impact in terms of delay, further investigations, and surgical technique. Comorbidity (AOR 7.982, 95% CI, Conclusion: Only 0.6% of all tests had a significant impact in terms of changing perioperative anaesthetic management. The significant impact of abnormal investigation result noticed was delayed surgery.
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.