SynthesisBritish journal of anaesthesia2026
Quantification of emergency operating theatre process performance: a systematic review of clinical studies.
Synthesis in British journal of anaesthesia, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOperating theatre performance is an essential component of healthcare resource optimisation. Because of its time-critical nature, emergency operating theatre performance is a problem distinct to that of elective surgery. Process performance can be quantified through the related terms: productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness. This systematic review examined the metrics used to quantify emergency operating theatre performance and the methodological quality of the associated literature.
methodsPubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Embase were searched from inception to December 2024 using Medical Subject Headings terms relating to metric, performance, and operating theatre. Studies were reviewed independently for inclusion and quality (ROBINS-I and GRADE). Only clinical studies are presented here.
resultsIn total, 32 clinical studies were included, and 19 performance metrics were identified (six efficiency; 10 effectiveness; three productivity). The median (range) performance metrics per study was 4 (1-7). Frequently reported metrics were out-of-hours operating (19 studies; 59%), delay (17 studies; 53%), and utilisation (13 studies; 41%). Eleven (34%) studies were low quality and 21 (66%) were very low quality. Twenty-six (81%) studies used insufficient metrics, 30 (94%) studies used non-generalisable metrics, 29 (91%) studies did not quantify trade-off between metrics, and 16 (50%) studies had insufficient scope of investigation. Interventions evaluated included reallocating theatre time (eight studies; 25%), increasing emergency theatre capacity (eight studies; 25%), and instituting acute care surgery services (six studies; 19%).
conclusionsCurrently, there is no widely recognised framework to assess the quality of emergency theatre performance study designs. There is a tendency within clinical studies to focus on effectiveness rather than efficiency, potentially reflecting clinicians' focus on patient outcome. Systematic biases that reduce evidence quality are common, creating uncertainty in the validity and generalisability of results. To mitigate the risk of future false economies, consensus on what constitutes best practice of theatre performance study design is required. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO (CRD42021295480).
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.