MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135800795 · doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e318269cfd7

Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia Consensus Statement on Preoperative Selection of Adult Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea Scheduled for Ambulatory Surgery

2012· article· en· W2135800795 on OpenAlexaff
Girish P. Joshi, Tong J. Gan, Frances Chung

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAmbulatoryObstructive sleep apneaPerioperativeGuidelineIntensive care medicineSurgeryAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The suitability of ambulatory surgery for a patient with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) remains controversial because of concerns of increased perioperative complications including postdischarge death. Therefore, a Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia task force on practice guidelines developed a consensus statement for the selection of patients with OSA scheduled for ambulatory surgery. A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Although the studies evaluating perioperative outcome in OSA patients undergoing ambulatory surgery are sparse and of limited quality, they do provide useful information that can guide clinical practice. Patients with a known diagnosis of OSA and optimized comorbid medical conditions can be considered for ambulatory surgery, if they are able to use a continuous positive airway pressure device in the postoperative period. Patients with a presumed diagnosis of OSA, based on screening tools such as the STOP-Bang questionnaire, and with optimized comorbid conditions, can be considered for ambulatory surgery, if postoperative pain can be managed predominantly with nonopioid analgesic techniques. On the other hand, OSA patients with nonoptimized comorbid medical conditions may not be good candidates for ambulatory surgery. What other guidelines are available on this topic? The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) practice guidelines for management of surgical patients with OSA published in 2006. Why was this guideline developed? The ASA guidelines are outdated because several recent studies provide new information such as validated screening tools for clinical diagnosis of OSA and safety of ambulatory laparoscopic bariatric surgery in OSA patients. Therefore, an update on the selection of patients with OSA undergoing ambulatory surgery is warranted. How does this guideline differ from existing guidelines? Unlike the ASA guidelines, this consensus statement recommends the use of the STOP-Bang criteria for preoperative OSA screening and considers patients' comorbid conditions in the patient selection process. Also, current literature does not support the ASA recommendations that upper abdominal procedures are not appropriate for ambulatory surgery. Why does this guideline differ from existing guidelines? This consensus statement differs from existing ASA guidelines because of the availability of new evidence.

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)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.011
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations278
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207