Comorbidity assessment methods and their significance in predicting the results of treatment of older patients undergoing elective abdominal surgeries for cancer – A scoping review

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY Cancer Epidemiology Pub Date : 2024-06-11 DOI:10.1016/j.canep.2024.102597
Urszula Skorus-Zadęcka, Apolonia Miążek, Natalia Zmysłowska, Kuba Kupniewski, Jakub Kenig
{"title":"Comorbidity assessment methods and their significance in predicting the results of treatment of older patients undergoing elective abdominal surgeries for cancer – A scoping review","authors":"Urszula Skorus-Zadęcka,&nbsp;Apolonia Miążek,&nbsp;Natalia Zmysłowska,&nbsp;Kuba Kupniewski,&nbsp;Jakub Kenig","doi":"10.1016/j.canep.2024.102597","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>The scoping review was performed to identify methods of comorbidity assessment and to evaluate their significance in predicting the results of treatment of older patients undergoing elective abdominal surgeries for cancer.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and European Trials Register were searched for eligible studies investigating the impact of comorbidity on various postoperative outcomes of patients aged ≥65. Findings were narratively reported.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The review identified 40 studies with a total population of 59,612 patients, using eight different methods of comorbidity assessment. The most used was Charlson Comorbidity Index (60 % of studies) and presence of specific comorbid conditions (38 %). No study provided rationale for the choice of specific comorbidity measure. Most of the included studies reported short-term results (75 %), such as postoperative complications (43 %) and mortality (18 %) as main clinical endpoint. The results were inconsistent across the studies.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>There is still no consensus regarding the choice of comorbidity measures and their role in postoperative outcome prediction. Further efforts are needed to develop new, well-designed, more effective comorbidity assessments tools.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56322,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Epidemiology","volume":"91 ","pages":"Article 102597"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877782124000766","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

The scoping review was performed to identify methods of comorbidity assessment and to evaluate their significance in predicting the results of treatment of older patients undergoing elective abdominal surgeries for cancer.

Materials and methods

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and European Trials Register were searched for eligible studies investigating the impact of comorbidity on various postoperative outcomes of patients aged ≥65. Findings were narratively reported.

Results

The review identified 40 studies with a total population of 59,612 patients, using eight different methods of comorbidity assessment. The most used was Charlson Comorbidity Index (60 % of studies) and presence of specific comorbid conditions (38 %). No study provided rationale for the choice of specific comorbidity measure. Most of the included studies reported short-term results (75 %), such as postoperative complications (43 %) and mortality (18 %) as main clinical endpoint. The results were inconsistent across the studies.

Discussion

There is still no consensus regarding the choice of comorbidity measures and their role in postoperative outcome prediction. Further efforts are needed to develop new, well-designed, more effective comorbidity assessments tools.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
合并症评估方法及其在预测因癌症接受择期腹部手术的老年患者的治疗效果方面的意义--范围界定综述
材料与方法检索了Ovid MEDLINE、Embase、CENTRAL、Web of Science、ClinicalTrials.gov和欧洲试验注册中心的符合条件的研究,这些研究调查了合并症对年龄≥65岁患者各种术后结果的影响。结果该研究共发现了 40 项研究,涉及 59612 名患者,使用了 8 种不同的合并症评估方法。使用最多的是夏尔森合并症指数(60%的研究)和是否存在特定合并症(38%)。没有研究提供选择特定合并症测量方法的理由。大部分纳入的研究都报告了短期结果(75%),如作为主要临床终点的术后并发症(43%)和死亡率(18%)。讨论关于合并症测量指标的选择及其在术后结果预测中的作用,目前仍未达成共识。需要进一步努力开发新的、精心设计的、更有效的合并症评估工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cancer Epidemiology
Cancer Epidemiology 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.80%
发文量
200
审稿时长
39 days
期刊介绍: Cancer Epidemiology is dedicated to increasing understanding about cancer causes, prevention and control. The scope of the journal embraces all aspects of cancer epidemiology including: • Descriptive epidemiology • Studies of risk factors for disease initiation, development and prognosis • Screening and early detection • Prevention and control • Methodological issues The journal publishes original research articles (full length and short reports), systematic reviews and meta-analyses, editorials, commentaries and letters to the editor commenting on previously published research.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Years of life lost due to cancer in Ecuador Trends in incidence and survival of the four most common cancers by stage at diagnosis in Cyprus: A population-based study from 2004 to 2017 Measuring healthy life expectancy and determinants of poor perceived health: A population-based study among a subset of rare and common cancer survivors Colorectal cancer survival in Mexico: Leveraging a national health insurance database
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1