Synoptic Operative Reporting in Cervical Cancer Surgeries: Experience From a Single Oncology Center
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective In today's era of highly methodological oncological practices in place, we have a huge database to regulate, and it is foreseeable that a humongous load of information is ahead of us that we need to organize and comprehend. With the advancement in surgical equipment and evolving procedures, we need to store the information in a transferrable, understandable, and systematic way to prevent any ebb in the future. The systematic recording of operative data is even more important for patient management, training, and research. Standardized reporting also helps surgical residents have a better understanding of all aspects of the procedure. This study aims to analyze the synoptic operative reporting in cervical cancer patients from December 2009 to February 2020 in a single tertiary care center dedicated to providing oncology services to patients. This study will analyze the understandability, volume, and ease of transference of data during the given time period. Methodology The Alberta Cancer Registry was contacted to obtain data from the synoptic operative reports. Synoptic Operative Reports of all the patients operated on cervical cancer from December 2009 to February 2020. Results The data were obtained for 574 patients. As many as 463 patients were operated on for stage 1 and 2 cervical cancers and 10 patients for advanced and recurrent cervical cancer. A total of 101 patients were operated on for high-grade cervical dysplasia (HSIL). Adenocarcinoma was the most common histology. Laparotomy was performed in 308 patients, whereas others had laparoscopic procedures. Details of the surgery from the beginning of the incision to closure were recorded. The cervical cancer template consisted of 356 questions. There were separate templates for advanced and early-stage cancer. However, even with the meticulously detailed report, an average of only eight minutes was taken by each user to complete the template. Conclusion The computerized synoptic operative report has an upper hand over the dictated documentation report along with the ease of execution without missing essential substance. Its utility as an educational tool is very promising. Therefore, we encourage other facilities, especially cancer centers, to use synoptic operative reports more extensively not only for cervical cancer surgeries but also for other ones.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».