SynthesisEuropean journal of anaesthesiology2026
A systematic review of efforts to predict day of surgery cancellation.
Synthesis in European journal of anaesthesiology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDay of surgery cancellation (DOSC) for elective surgery occurs in 18% of elective surgeries worldwide with resultant impacts on patients and healthcare systems. Accurate prediction of such cancellations could yield significant benefit.
objectiveThis systematic review synthesises evidence to inform future efforts at gold-standard statistical modelling.
designSystematic review and qualitative synthesis using the 'Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis' (SWiM) framework. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science, 2013-2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were considered eligible if they presented the development, validation or update of a model to predict DOSC. Risk of bias for included studies was assessed using the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST). Data was collected on included variables, method of prediction, whether prediction was made at the level of the patient or the system, and training and assessment processes.
resultsLiterature searching identified 7154 unique studies, 6 of which were included in the final synthesis. These studies encompassed total of 759 337 elective surgical procedures, of which 47 609 were cancellations, across a variety of adult and paediatric surgery. Methods of prediction included logistic regression models, machine learning, and spatial regression models. These used demographic, socioeconomic, comorbidity, surgical, appointment and other factors as predictors. The best discrimination achieved by models in each study, quantified by area under the receiver operator curve, ranged from 0.75 to 0.92 in development and 0.70 to 0.74 in validation datasets. One study demonstrated better calibration at the census tract level of spatial regression models when incorporating local survey data compared with individual-prediction-aggregation models.
conclusionsModels to predict DOSC identified in this review demonstrated moderate discrimination ability but there was significant heterogeneity between studies and reports of calibration were limited. This review serves as a valuable synthesis of current models to predict DOSC and should serve as a core reference for emerging studies in this field.
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.