MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Systematic Review: Prediction of Perioperative Cardiac Complications and Mortality by the Revised Cardiac Risk Index

2010· review· en· W2063728958 on OpenAlexafffund
Meredith K. Ford

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto General Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineLikelihood ratios in diagnostic testingPerioperativeProspective cohort studyCardiologyReceiver operating characteristicSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) is widely used to predict perioperative cardiac complications. PURPOSE: To evaluate the ability of the RCRI to predict cardiac complications and death after noncardiac surgery. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science (1966 to 31 December 2008). STUDY SELECTION: Cohort studies that reported the association of the RCRI with major cardiac complications (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and nonfatal cardiac arrest) or death in the hospital or within 30 days of surgery. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics, documented outcome data, and evaluated study quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 24 studies (792 740 patients), 18 reported cardiac complications; 6 of the 18 studies were prospective and had uniform outcome surveillance and blinded outcome adjudication. The RCRI discriminated moderately well between patients at low versus high risk for cardiac events after mixed noncardiac surgery (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.72 to 0.79]); sensitivity, 0.65 [CI, 0.46 to 0.81]; specificity, 0.76 [CI, 0.58 to 0.88]; positive likelihood ratio, 2.78 [CI, 1.74 to 4.45]; negative likelihood ratio, 0.45 [CI, 0.31 to 0.67]). Prediction of cardiac events after vascular noncardiac surgery was less accurate (AUC, 0.64 [CI, 0.61 to 0.66]; sensitivity, 0.70 [CI, 0.53 to 0.82]; specificity, 0.55 [CI, 0.45 to 0.66]; positive likelihood ratio, 1.56 [CI, 1.42 to 1.73]; negative likelihood ratio, 0.55 [CI, 0.40 to 0.76]). Six studies reported death, with a median AUC of 0.62 (range, 0.54 to 0.78). A pooled AUC for predicting death could not be calculated because of very high heterogeneity (I(2) = 95%). LIMITATION: Studies generally were of low methodological quality, had varied definitions of cardiac events, and were statistically and clinically heterogeneous. CONCLUSION: The RCRI discriminated moderately well between patients at low versus high risk for cardiac events after mixed noncardiac surgery. It did not perform well at predicting cardiac events after vascular noncardiac surgery or at predicting death. High-quality research is needed in this area of perioperative medicine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.008
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations543
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Internal MedicineSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207