Use of risk assessment tools in emergency general surgery: a cross-sectional survey of surgeons and trainees.

Andrea Spota, Amir Hassanpour, David Gomez, Eisar Al-Sukhni

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Updates in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Andrea SpotaDepartment of Surgery, University Health Network, 200 Elizabeth St, 10 Eaton North, Room 216, Toronto, ON, M5G 2C4, Canada. a.spota89@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7058-5089

Amir HassanpourDepartment of Surgery, University Health Network, 200 Elizabeth St, 10 Eaton North, Room 216, Toronto, ON, M5G 2C4, Canada.

David GomezDepartment of Surgery, St. Michael's Hospital-Unity Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Eisar Al-SukhniDepartment of Surgery, University Health Network, 200 Elizabeth St, 10 Eaton North, Room 216, Toronto, ON, M5G 2C4, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The applicability of risk assessment tools (RATs) for preoperative risk assessment (PRA) in Emergency General Surgery (EGS) is unclear. Limited knowledge of surgeons' approach to risk assessment is available. We investigated how Canadian surgeons approach PRA for EGS and their awareness of available RATs. Canadian Association of General Surgeons members were invited to complete an online cross-sectional survey. Descriptive statistics were reported. Of 278 respondents, 70% were attending surgeons (44% had 5-10 years in practice, 43% > 10 years), 5% fellows, and 25% residents. Most worked in medium-/large-volume centers (89%) and teaching hospitals (77%). During preoperative risk assessment, 2/3 of respondents reported applying clinical experience/instinct and referring to literature, while 55% used RATs. The best-known and used tools were the ACS-NSQIP calculator (68% and 59%) and the Emergency Surgery Acuity Score (ESAS, 66% and 47%, respectively). Surgeons were divided regarding the accuracy of RAT estimates, with 47% considering them generally accurate and 49% inaccurate. Trainees reported greater interest in major morbidity risk (86% vs. 65%) and probability of supported discharge (45% vs. 29%) than surgeons. Among participants not using RATs, 41% indicated they are scarcely accessible in the EGS context, while 33% found them cumbersome and time-consuming. RATs are underused in favor of personal judgment. The use of RATs may facilitate decision-making in elderly/complex patients and help reduce variability in practice, particularly for trainees and less-experienced surgeons. A greater effort in education is needed to spread the culture of RATs for PRA.

Indexed as

General SurgerySurgeonsSurgical Procedures, OperativeAcute Care SurgeryCanadaCross-Sectional StudiesEmergenciesFemaleHumansInternship and ResidencyMaleRisk AssessmentSurveys and QuestionnairesACS-NSQIP calculatorComplex patientsEmergency general surgeryFrail patientsPerioperative risk assessmentRisk assessment tools

Identifiers

PMID39825020

DOI10.1007/s13304-025-02089-1

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.