Interdisciplinary Strategies to Reduce Surgical Infectious Risk in the Operating Theater: Protocol for Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSIs) represent one of the most prevalent and significant complications associated with surgical procedures, often leading to prolonged hospitalization and delayed patient recovery. While recent international consensus guidelines have proposed evidence-based strategies to mitigate SSIs, they fall short in addressing the efficient and interdisciplinary implementation of these measures within the operating theater. Consequently, further research is required to identify and evaluate optimal interdisciplinary organizational approaches for the prevention of SSIs. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to map the scope, diversity, and nature of research on interdisciplinary strategies aimed at reducing SSIs and to analyze the impact of interdisciplinary on the effectiveness of preventive interventions. METHODS: Using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews, a comprehensive search will be conducted across databases including Embase (encompassing MEDLINE and PubMed-not-MEDLINE), CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library, supplemented by manual searches of reference lists from included papers. This review targets studies published between 2016 and 2024, aligning with the World Health Organization's 2016 SSI prevention guidelines, which introduced significant advancements in practice and remain the global benchmark. Only studies published in English or French will be considered. Around 5 reviewers independently distributed the included papers for detailed reading and data extraction, while the lead author concurrently and independently reviewed all papers. Inclusion criteria follow the Participants, Concept, and Context (PCC) framework, specifying that the eligible population comprises surgical teams. The primary concept of interest is interdisciplinary strategies aimed at preventing infection risk. The context focuses on adult surgical procedures within the operating room during turnover periods. Studies using experimental, quasi-experimental, preexperimental, observational, case-control, or cross-sectional designs will be included. RESULTS: From the 1679 papers initially identified, 45 were selected for detailed analysis by 5 reviewers, with the selection process completed by November 2024. CONCLUSIONS: Emerging interdisciplinary strategies demonstrate significant potential in reducing the incidence of SSIs. This initiative forms part of a broader global project focused on codeveloping standardized protocols for preoperative preparation within the operating room to mitigate SSI risks. The findings of this scoping review will serve as the foundation for a subsequent qualitative survey and a pre-post quasi-experimental quantitative study to evaluate the integration and effectiveness of these strategies in clinical practice. The review protocol will be formally registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF) in 2024. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/67660.
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 | 0.080 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.009 |
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".