ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2026
Use of Structured Risk Scores in Preoperative Pulmonary Assessment Among Pulmonologists and Pulmonary Medicine Residents in Türkiye: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Structured risk scores are recommended to identify patients at risk of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs), yet their uptake among the specialists who deliver preoperative respiratory consultation is poorly characterised. We examined reported score use, associated factors, and the barriers reported by non-users. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey using voluntary convenience sampling of pulmonologists and pulmonary medicine residents in Türkiye, recruited through professional channels (September 2025-March 2026). The primary outcome was self-reported use of scoring systems in preoperative assessment; naming at least one validated PPC prediction model (ARISCAT/Canet, Gupta, or Arozullah) was analysed as a post hoc secondary outcome. Associated factors were explored using multivariable logistic regression with categorical coding of institution and professional position, collinearity diagnostics, and sensitivity analyses. Reporting followed STROBE and CHERRIES. Results: Of 202 respondents, 154 (76.2%; 95% CI 69.8-81.9) reported using scores and 142 (70.3%; 95% CI 63.5-76.5) named a validated PPC model; 135 of these 142 (95.1%) named ARISCAT/Canet, whereas the Gupta and Arozullah models were each named by ≤8.9% of respondents. University-hospital practice was associated with higher odds of score use than state/private-hospital practice (adjusted OR 5.93; 95% CI 1.77-19.94), and this association persisted in all sensitivity analyses. Residents and specialists did not differ after adjustment (OR 0.80; 95% CI 0.29-2.21). Academic-rank physicians reported lower use than residents (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.06-0.78), but this exploratory finding was not robust to exclusion of internally inconsistent responses. Among the 38 consistent non-users, the most frequently reported barriers were limited assessment time (57.9%) and insufficient knowledge (26.3%). Conclusion: In this convenience sample, reported structured PPC risk assessment relied almost entirely on a single instrument and differed chiefly by institutional setting. These cross-sectional, self-reported findings suggest that education, workflow integration, and local comparative evaluation of candidate models merit prospective study.
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.