MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2932398677 · doi:10.1007/s00268-019-04993-1

Perioperative Mortality Rates as a Health Metric for Acute Abdominal Surgery in Low‐ and Middle‐Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Future Recommendations

2019· review· en· W2932398677 on OpenAlexaff
Marie‐Rachelle Felizaire, Tiffany Paradis, Andrew Beckett, Paola Fata, Jeremy Grushka, Walter D. Johnson, Kosar Khwaja, John G. Meara, Gabriel Ndayisaba, Ipshita Prakash, Tarek Razek, Somprasong Tongmeesee, Evan G. Wong, Prem Yohannan, Dan Deckelbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Surgery · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Health and Surgery
Canadian institutionsCollege of Physicians and Surgeons of OntarioMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeMEDLINEScopusHealth carePublic healthGlobal healthEmergency medicineFamily medicineMedical emergencySurgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Approximately 5 billion people do not have access to safe, timely, and affordable surgical and anesthesia care, with this number disproportionately affecting those from low-middle-income countries (LMICs). Perioperative mortality rates (POMRs) have been identified by the World Health Organization as a potential health metric to monitor quality of surgical care provided. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate published reports of POMR and suggest recommendations for its appropriate use as a health metric. METHODS: The protocol was registered a priori with PROSPERO. A peer-reviewed search strategy was developed adhering with the PRISMA guidelines. Relevant articles were identified through Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CDSR, LILACS, PubMed, BIOSIS, Global Health, Africa-Wide Information, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Two independent reviewers performed a primary screening analysis based on titles and abstracts, followed by a full-text screen. Studies describing POMRs of adult emergency abdominal surgeries in LMICs were included. RESULTS: A total of 7787 articles were screened of which 7466 were excluded based on title and abstract. Three hundred and twenty-one articles entered full-text screen of which 70 articles met the inclusion criteria. Variables including timing of POMR reporting, intraoperative mortality, length of hospital stay, complication rates, and disease severity score were collected. Complication rates were reported in 83% of studies and postoperative stay in 46% of studies. 40% of papers did not report the specific timing of POMR collection. 7% of papers reported on intraoperative death. Additionally, 46% of papers used a POMR timing specific to the duration of their study. Vital signs were discussed in 24% of articles, with disease severity score only mentioned in 20% of studies. CONCLUSION: POMR is an important health metric for quantifications of quality of care of surgical systems. Further validation and standardization are necessary to effectively use this health metric.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of SurgerySame topicGlobal Health and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207