ArticleCureus2025
Improving Preoperative Care in Pakistan: An Evaluation of Pre-anesthetic Record Completeness and Documentation Practices.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Accurate pre-anesthetic assessments are crucial for safe and effective anesthesia management. However, the completeness and quality of these assessments are often suboptimal, potentially impacting patient safety and surgical outcomes. This study evaluates the quality of preoperative assessments documented by anesthetists at a large private tertiary care hospital in Islamabad, Pakistan, focusing on adherence to standardized protocols and identifying specific deficiencies in documentation. Methods A retrospective descriptive study was conducted, reviewing 122 patient records from the General Surgery Department between October and December 2024. Pre-anesthetic record (PAR) forms were evaluated using a custom data collection tool based on the Global Quality Index (GQI). The tool assessed 16 key criteria for completeness, with each criterion categorized as "Yes-Complete" (fully documented with sufficient detail), "Yes-Incomplete" (partially documented but lacking essential details for comprehensive preoperative evaluation), or "No" (entirely missing). Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive statistics and IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, V. 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Results The study found significant variability in the completeness of documentation. Patient demographics (age and name) were consistently recorded in 122 (100%) of the cases. However, critical data such as patient weight was recorded in only three (2.5%) of the forms, with 119 (97.5%) missing this information. Preoperative diagnoses were documented in one (0.8%) case, while 121 (99.2%) forms lacked this data. Preoperative vital signs were recorded in one (0.8%) case, with 120 (98.4%) missing them. Pre-medication prescriptions were noted in only two (1.6%) cases, leaving 120 (98.4%) incomplete. Conclusion The findings highlight substantial gaps in pre-anesthetic documentation. There is a pressing need for standardizing documentation practices to improve the quality and completeness of preoperative assessments.
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.