ArticleBMC surgery2025
Validation and reliability of the Turkish version of the surgical site infection assessment scale: a methodological study.
Article in BMC 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the incidence of healthcare-associated infections has decreased over the past decade, surgical site infections (SSIs) have continued to constitute a significant proportion of these infections. Therefore, early identification and management of high-risk patients has been crucial in reducing the incidence of SSIs.
objectivesIn this study, we aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Surgical Site Infection Assessment Scale (SSIAS), which was developed to identify patients at risk of superficial incisional SSI.
methodsIn this methodological study, we evaluated the Turkish validity and reliability of the SSIAS in a prospective cross-sectional sample of 170 patients who underwent elective abdominal surgery at a tertiary healthcare center. The scale was adapted in accordance with international guidelines through a forward-backward translation process performed by three professional translators and content validation by a panel of 20 experts. We assessed the psychometric properties using univariate logistic regression and ROC analysis for construct validity (AUC calculation). Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated based on sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values at the optimal cutoff point (> 14), determined using the Youden index.
resultsThe adaptation process was carried out based on Beaton et al.‘s guidelines, and the content validity ratio (CVR) was calculated between 0.78 and 1.00. ROC analysis revealed an AUC of 0.935 (95% CI: 0.897–0.972), and at the > 14 cutoff point, we observed 91.8% sensitivity and 79.3% specificity. The scale demonstrated superior predictive performance compared to previously developed tools. Surgical site infections occurred in 49 patients. The mean scale score of infected patients was 16.76 ± 1.85. For each one-point increase in the scale score, the risk of infection increased by 3.52 times. Smoking, comorbidities, abnormal laboratory findings, length of preoperative hospitalization, wound classification, body temperature, and prolonged presence of drains were identified as factors influencing the risk of infection.
conclusionThe Turkish version of the Surgical Site Infection Assessment Scale (SSIAS), originally developed by Anwar et al., was found to be a valid and reliable tool for predicting SSI risk in Türkiye. Due to its high predictive power, it offers practical potential for early risk identification and preventive action in clinical settings.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.