Elimination of Preoperative Testing in Ambulatory Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preoperative testing has been criticized as having little impact on perioperative outcomes. We conducted a randomized, single-blind, prospective, controlled pilot study to determine whether indicated preoperative testing can be eliminated without increasing the perioperative incidence of adverse events in selected patients undergoing ambulatory surgery. METHODS: One thousand sixty-one eligible patients were randomized either to have indicated preoperative testing or no preoperative testing. In the indicated testing group, patients received indicated preoperative testing: a complete blood count, electrolytes, blood glucose, creatinine, electrocardiogram, and chest radiograph according to the Ontario Preoperative Testing Grid as per current practice, whereas in the no testing group, no testing was ordered. The investigators, data collectors, and patient outcome reviewers were blinded to the group assignment. The primary outcome measures were the rate of perioperative adverse events and the rates of adverse events within 7 and 30 days after surgery. RESULTS: Patients' age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, type of surgery, and anesthesia were similar between the two groups. There were no significant differences in the rates of perioperative adverse events and the rates of adverse events within 30 days after surgery between the no testing group and the indicated testing group. Hospital revisits <or=7 days were higher in the indicated testing group (P < 0.05). None of the adverse events were related to the indicated testing or no testing. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study showed that there was no increase in the perioperative adverse events as a result of no preoperative testing in our study population. A larger study is needed to demonstrate that indicated testing may be safely eliminated in selected patients undergoing ambulatory surgery without increasing perioperative complications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".