ArticleAnnals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches2025
A Qualitative Study on Surgeon Perceptions of Risk Calculators in Emergency General Surgery.
Article in Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Electronic Health Record Workflows in Acute Care Surgery: Ethnographic Study.JMIR medical informatics · 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
Objective: To understand how surgeons perceive risk calculators in emergency general surgery (EGS). Background: EGS involves complex decision-making of operative and nonoperative management. Risk calculators can aid in shared decision-making and informed consent. Methods: We performed semi-structured interviews among emergency surgeons within 1 healthcare system to explore perceptions of risk calculators in EGS. Interviews were completed until thematic saturation, transcribed, coded in duplicate, and analyzed using inductive analysis within a modified grounded theory framework to generate theory regarding surgeon perceptions of risk calculators in EGS. Results: Among 20 interviewees, the mean age was 45. We identified dominant themes related to the concerns of and benefits of using risk calculators within EGS, both in situations of clear and unclear best treatment options. Surgeons questioned risk calculator validity and noted that a lack of health numeracy can limit their use. Risk calculators were seen as helpful for communication, consensus building, informed consent, and litigation mitigation. The ideal risk calculator should have low activation energy for use, incorporate relevant data and accurate prognostication, and provide actionable, easily interpretable output. Education for providers and patients on risk calculator availability and use is necessary. Conclusions: Although surgeons may initially question the data produced by risk calculators in EGS, they identify several potential virtues to their bedside use when optimal treatment options are and are not clear. The ideal risk calculator for use in EGS should be convenient and relevant. Future studies are needed to explore patient perceptions and to directly observe patterns of risk calculator use.
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.