MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404799327 · doi:10.1186/s13017-024-00564-5

International cross-sectional survey on current and updated definitions of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome

2024· article· en· W4404799327 on OpenAlexafffund
Prashant Nasa, Robert Wise, Marije Smit, Stefan Acosta, Scott D’Amours, William Beaubien‐Souligny, Zsolt Bodnár, Federico Coccolini, Neha Dangayach, Wojciech Dąbrowski, Juan Duchesne, Janeth C. Ejike, Goran Augustin, Bart De Keulenaer, Andrew W. Kirkpatrick, Ashish K. Khanna, Edward J. Kimball, Abhilash Koratala, Rosemary K. Lee, Ari Leppäniemi, Edgar V. Lerma, Alejandro Meraz-Muñoz, Sheila Nainan Myatra, Daniel J. Niven, Claudia Olvera, Carlos A. Ordóñez, Clayton C. Petro, Bruno M. Pereira, Claudio Ronco, Adrian Regli, Derek J. Roberts, Philippe Rola, Michael J. Rosen, Gentle Sunder Shrestha, Michael Sugrue, Juan Carlos Q. Velez, Ron Wald, Jan J. De Waele, Annika Reintam Blaser, Manu L. N. G. Malbrain

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Emergency Surgery · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal Surgery and Complications
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversity of CalgaryFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of ManitobaSt. Boniface Hospital
FundersFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of SydneyCumming School of Medicine, University of CalgaryUniversité de MontréalWake Forest School of MedicineHomi Bhabha National InstituteOchsner HealthUniwersytet Medyczny w LublinieTartu ÜlikoolUniversidad del ValleFiona Stanley HospitalUniversitair Medisch Centrum GroningenUniversiteit GentFundación Valle del LiliUniversitair Ziekenhuis GentLunds UniversitetCleveland ClinicRijksuniversiteit GroningenTribhuvan UniversityUniversity of ManitobaUniversità degli Studi di PadovaHelsingin YliopistoUniversity of New South WalesUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignTulane UniversityKaiser Permanente
KeywordsMedicineIntensivistAbdominal compartment syndromeRespondentSpecialtyFamily medicineCross-sectional studyIntensive care medicineIntensive careSurgeryAbdomenPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Abdominal Compartment Society (WSACS) established consensus definitions and recommendations for the management of intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) in 2006, and they were last updated in 2013. The WSACS conducted an international survey between 2022 and 2023 to seek the agreement of healthcare practitioners (HCPs) worldwide on current and new candidate statements that may be used for future guidelines. METHODS: A self-administered, online cross-sectional survey was conducted under the auspices of the WSACS to assess the level of agreement among HCPs over current and new candidate statements. The survey, distributed electronically worldwide, collected agreement or disagreement with statements on the measurement of intra-abdominal pressure (IAP), pathophysiology, definitions, and management of IAH/ACS. Statistical analysis assessed agreement levels, expressed in percentages, on statements among respondents, and comparisons between groups were performed according to the respondent's education status, base specialty, duration of work experience, role (intensivist vs non-intensivist) and involvement in previous guidelines. Agreement was considered to be reached when 80% or more of the respondents agreed with a particular statement. RESULTS: A total of 1042 respondents from 102 countries, predominantly physicians (73%), of whom 48% were intensivists, participated. Only 59% of HCPs were aware of the 2013 WSACS guidelines, and 41% incorporated them into practice. Despite agreement in most statements, significant variability existed. Notably, agreement was not reached on four new candidate statements: "normal intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) is 10 mmHg in critically ill adults" (77%), "clinical assessment and estimation of IAP is inaccurate" (65.2%), "intragastric can be an alternative to the intravesical route for IAP measurement" (70.4%), and "measurement of IAP should be repeated in the resting position after measurement in a supine position" (71.9%). The survey elucidated nuances in clinical practice and highlighted areas for further education and standardization. CONCLUSION: More than ten years after the last published guidelines, this worldwide cross-sectional survey collected feedback and evaluated the level of agreement with current recommendations and new candidate statements. This will inform the consensus process for future guideline development.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of Emergency SurgerySame topicAbdominal Surgery and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207