ArticleWorld journal of surgery2024
The state of global surgery assessment and data collection tools: A scoping review.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review of the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery indicators with quality assessment of modelled estimates.The British journal of surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Mapping Plastic Reconstructive Surgical Needs and Access Barriers in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Scoping Review.World journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Defining the bellwether procedures and processes for global trauma care: an international Delphi study.BMJ global health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere has been a proliferation of global surgery assessment tools designed for use in low- and middle-income countries. This scoping review sought to categorize and organize the breadth of global surgery assessment tools in the literature.
methodsThe search was conducted using PubMed from October 2022 to April 2023 according to PRISMA extension for scoping review guidelines. The search terms were (("global surgery"[All Fields]) AND ("assessment"[All Fields]) OR (data collection)). Only tools published in English that detailed surgical assessment tools designed for low- and middle-income countries were included.
resultsThe search resulted in 963 papers and 46 texts described unique tools that were included for the final review. Of these, 30 (65%) tools were quantitative, 1 (2%) qualitative, and 15 (33%) employed mixed-methods. 25 (54%) tools evaluated surgery in general, whereas 21 (46%) were focused on various surgical subspecialties. Qualitatively, major themes among the tools were noted. There was significant overlap of many tools.
conclusionsNonspecialty surgery was represented more than any specialty surgery and many specialties had little or no representation in the literature. Ideally, local leadership should be involved in surgical assessment tools. Different methodologies, such as checklists and observational studies, aimed to target varying aspects of surgery and had distinct strengths and weaknesses. Further efforts should focus on expanding tools in neglected specialties.
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.