International cross-sectional survey on current and updated definitions of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".