ArticleBMJ open2025
Consensus on the definition, components, timeframe and grading of composite outcome of postoperative pulmonary complication-protocol for an international mixed-method consensus study (PrECiSIOn).
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
Consensus Statements on Definition, Components and Grading of Postoperative Pulmonary Complications- an International Delphi Study
Standardising Terminology, Classification, Diagnostic Recognition and Reporting of Patient-Ventilator Interactions: Protocol for an International Delphi Consensus Study (INTERACT)
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Same Instrument, Differently Tuned? Surveys, Delphi Studies, and the Search for Structured Disagreement.Critical care explorations · 2026Article
- Author response to: comments on "Postoperative pulmonary complications following major emergency abdominal surgery: incidence, risk factors, and outcomes-an observational study".Journal of anesthesia · 2026Article
- Association and incremental predictive value of preoperative AISI and CALLY for postoperative pulmonary complications after McKeown esophagectomy following neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy.Frontiers in immunology · 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPostoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) represent a significant cause of postoperative morbidity and even mortality. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding this composite endpoint, the definition of the individual components, classification and optimal outcome measures. This study aims to refine the PPCs composite framework by evaluating its construct validity, assessing the necessity and risks of a composite measure and exploring the feasibility of differentiating severity categories.
methodsA Delphi consensus process will be conducted, engaging an international multidisciplinary group of 30-40 panellists, including clinicians, researchers, patients, public representatives and health economists. Through iterative rounds, the study will seek agreement on the individual components of the PPCs composite. Additionally, consensus will establish a framework for a composite outcome measure based on a standardised severity classification, appropriate timeframes and weighted grading of PPCs. ANALYSIS: Consensus, defined by ≥75% concurrence in multiple choice questions or on Likert-scale statements, will be evaluated from round 2 onwards. Delphi rounds will be continued until all statements have reached stability of responses evaluated by χ ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will be conducted in strict compliance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and will adhere to ACCORD guidance for reporting. Ethics approval has been obtained for this study from the University of Wolverhampton, UK (SOABE/202425/staff/3). Informed consent will be obtained from all panellists before the commencement of the Delphi process. The results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal with the authorship assigned in accordance with ICMJE requirements. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06916598 (clinicaltrials.gov).
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.