Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41792639›Full record

Observational studyBMC anesthesiology2026

Evaluating PAC visits and time to fitness in a tertiary care cancer hospital: a retrospective observational study.

Pradeepika Gangwar, Uddalak Chattopadhyay, Nikhil Kumar Singh

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Pradeepika GangwarDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Uddalak ChattopadhyayDepartment of Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Pain, Mahamana Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya Cancer Centre and Homi Bhabha Cancer Hospital, Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, 221005, India. uddalak2011dr@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-2961-5473
Nikhil Kumar SinghDepartment of Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Pain, Mahamana Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya Cancer Centre and Homi Bhabha Cancer Hospital, Homi Bhabha National Institute (HBNI), Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, 221005, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9398-519X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEfficient pre-anesthesia check-up (PAC) clearance is essential for timely cancer surgery; however, delays are common in high-volume oncology centres, where complex comorbidities, fragmented workflows, and logistical barriers create process bottlenecks. Evidence quantifying the combined impact of these factors—particularly the burden of repeated visits and long travel distances—remains limited.

methodsThis retrospective observational study included adults (≥ 18 years) attending the PAC clinic of a tertiary cancer centre in North India between December 2023 and May 2024. Of 1,016 attendees, 33 were excluded due to incomplete PAC documentation, yielding 983 patients for analysis. Time to PAC fitness was recorded in days; delayed PAC fitness was defined a priori as > 4 days (upper quartile). Travel distance was calculated as the one-way road distance from the registered residential address to the hospital using Google Maps. The Visit Burden Index (VBI) was defined as: (number of PAC visits) × log₁₀ (distance in km + 1). Predictors of delayed PAC fitness were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression with bootstrap internal validation (1,000 iterations). A Cox proportional hazards model (PAC fitness as the event) was additionally performed due to right-skewed clearance times.

resultsThe mean age was 50.2 ± 14.1 years, and 533 patients (54.2%) were male. The median time to PAC fitness was 1 day (IQR 1–4), while the mean was 5.4 days. Known comorbidities were present in 409 patients (42.6%), and newly detected medical conditions were identified in 170 (17.7%). PAC fitness was achieved in one visit by 401 patients (40.8%), two visits by 503 (51.2%), and three or more visits by 79 (8.0%). Among those requiring multiple visits, the predominant reasons were pending investigations (n = 415, 71.4%) and uncontrolled medical illness (n = 167, 28.6%). Delay rates increased across VBI tertiles (4.8%, 26.5%, and 41.4%). In multivariable analysis, known comorbidity (aOR 2.98, 95% CI 2.08–4.26), newly detected medical conditions (aOR 3.52, 95% CI 2.39–5.19), and VBI (aOR 1.23 per unit, 95% CI 1.17–1.29) independently predicted delayed PAC fitness (all p < 0.001). Model discrimination was good (AUC 0.807; optimism-adjusted AUC 0.77). In Cox analysis, higher VBI (HR 0.88 per unit, 95% CI 0.84–0.92), known comorbidity (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61–0.83), and newly detected medical conditions (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59–0.85) were independently associated with longer time to PAC fitness (all p < 0.001).

conclusionDelayed PAC fitness reflects both comorbidity burden—including newly detected conditions—and modifiable system-level factors, particularly incomplete investigations. The Visit Burden Index quantifies combined visit–travel burden, demonstrates a dose–response relationship with delay, and independently predicts prolonged PAC clearance; its role in workflow optimization warrants multicentre validation.

trial registrationCTRI Registration: CTRI/2024/11/076616 [Registered on: 11/11/2024] - Trial Registered Prospectively in Clinical Trial Registry – India

Indexed as

NeoplasmsTertiary Care CentersAdultFemaleHumansIndiaMaleMiddle AgedPreoperative CareRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsComorbidity burdenOncology surgeryPperioperative delayPre-anesthesia check-upTravel burdenVisit Burden Index

Identifiers

PMID41792639
PMCPMC13077918

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.