MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956913724 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0219145

Pre-operative stress testing in the evaluation of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2019· review· en· W2956913724 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bindu Kalesan, Heidi Nicewarner, Sunny Intwala, Christopher Leung, Gary Balady

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisConfidence intervalRelative riskSample size determinationMEDLINEStress testing (software)Internal medicineSurgeryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pre-operative stress testing is widely used to evaluate patients for non-cardiac surgeries. However, its value in predicting peri-operative mortality is uncertain. The objective of this study is to assess the type and quality of available evidence in a comprehensive and statistically rigorous evaluation regarding the effectiveness of pre-operative stress testing in reducing 30-day post -operative mortality following non -cardiac surgery. METHODS: The databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases (from inception to January 27, 2016) were searched for all studies in English. We included studies with pre-operative stress testing prior to 10 different non-cardiac surgery among adults and excluded studies with sample size<15. The data on study characteristics, methodology and outcomes were extracted independently by two observers and checked by two other observers. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. We performed random effects meta-analysis to estimate relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) in two-group comparison and pooled the rates for stress test alone. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 and methodological quality of studies using Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The predefined protocol was registered in PROSPERO #CRD42016049212. RESULTS: From 1807 abstracts, 79 studies were eligible (297,534 patients): 40 had information on 30-day mortality, of which 6 studies compared stress test versus no stress test. The risk of 30-day mortality was not significant in the comparison of stress testing versus none (RR: 0.79, 95% CI = 0.35-1.80) along with weak evidence for heterogeneity. For the studies that evaluated stress testing without a comparison group, the pooled rates are 1.98% (95% CI = 1.25-2.85) with a high heterogeneity. There was evidence of potential publication bias and small study effects. CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial interest and research over the past 40 years to predict 30-day mortality risk among patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery, the current body of evidence is insufficient to derive a definitive conclusion as to whether stress testing leads to reduced peri-operative mortality.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.334
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.048 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations41
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207