The state of global surgery assessment and data collection tools: A scoping review.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY World Journal of Surgery Pub Date : 2024-10-28 DOI:10.1002/wjs.12380
Kevin Gianaris, Brooke Stephanian, Sabin Karki, Shailvi Gupta, Amila Ratnayake, Adam L Kushner, Reinou S Groen
{"title":"The state of global surgery assessment and data collection tools: A scoping review.","authors":"Kevin Gianaris, Brooke Stephanian, Sabin Karki, Shailvi Gupta, Amila Ratnayake, Adam L Kushner, Reinou S Groen","doi":"10.1002/wjs.12380","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There has been a proliferation of global surgery assessment tools designed for use in low- and middle-income countries. This scoping review sought to categorize and organize the breadth of global surgery assessment tools in the literature.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The search was conducted using PubMed from October 2022 to April 2023 according to PRISMA extension for scoping review guidelines. The search terms were ((\"global surgery\"[All Fields]) AND (\"assessment\"[All Fields]) OR (data collection)). Only tools published in English that detailed surgical assessment tools designed for low- and middle-income countries were included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search resulted in 963 papers and 46 texts described unique tools that were included for the final review. Of these, 30 (65%) tools were quantitative, 1 (2%) qualitative, and 15 (33%) employed mixed-methods. 25 (54%) tools evaluated surgery in general, whereas 21 (46%) were focused on various surgical subspecialties. Qualitatively, major themes among the tools were noted. There was significant overlap of many tools.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Nonspecialty surgery was represented more than any specialty surgery and many specialties had little or no representation in the literature. Ideally, local leadership should be involved in surgical assessment tools. Different methodologies, such as checklists and observational studies, aimed to target varying aspects of surgery and had distinct strengths and weaknesses. Further efforts should focus on expanding tools in neglected specialties.</p>","PeriodicalId":23926,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wjs.12380","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There has been a proliferation of global surgery assessment tools designed for use in low- and middle-income countries. This scoping review sought to categorize and organize the breadth of global surgery assessment tools in the literature.

Methods: The search was conducted using PubMed from October 2022 to April 2023 according to PRISMA extension for scoping review guidelines. The search terms were (("global surgery"[All Fields]) AND ("assessment"[All Fields]) OR (data collection)). Only tools published in English that detailed surgical assessment tools designed for low- and middle-income countries were included.

Results: The search resulted in 963 papers and 46 texts described unique tools that were included for the final review. Of these, 30 (65%) tools were quantitative, 1 (2%) qualitative, and 15 (33%) employed mixed-methods. 25 (54%) tools evaluated surgery in general, whereas 21 (46%) were focused on various surgical subspecialties. Qualitatively, major themes among the tools were noted. There was significant overlap of many tools.

Conclusions: Nonspecialty surgery was represented more than any specialty surgery and many specialties had little or no representation in the literature. Ideally, local leadership should be involved in surgical assessment tools. Different methodologies, such as checklists and observational studies, aimed to target varying aspects of surgery and had distinct strengths and weaknesses. Further efforts should focus on expanding tools in neglected specialties.

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
全球外科手术评估和数据收集工具的现状:范围综述。
背景:针对中低收入国家设计的全球手术评估工具层出不穷。本范围综述旨在对文献中广泛的全球手术评估工具进行分类和整理:根据范围界定综述指南的 PRISMA 扩展,从 2022 年 10 月至 2023 年 4 月使用 PubMed 进行了检索。检索词为(("整体手术"[所有字段])和("评估"[所有字段])或(数据收集))。结果:搜索结果显示,共有 963 篇论文和 46 篇文字描述的独特工具被纳入最终审查。其中,30 种(65%)工具采用定量方法,1 种(2%)采用定性方法,15 种(33%)采用混合方法。25种(54%)工具对外科手术进行了总体评估,21种(46%)工具侧重于各种外科亚专科。从定性角度看,这些工具之间存在一些主要的主题。结论:结论:非专科外科的代表性高于任何专科外科,许多专科在文献中几乎没有代表性。理想情况下,地方领导应参与到外科评估工具中来。不同的方法,如核对表和观察研究,旨在针对外科手术的不同方面,并具有不同的优缺点。进一步的努力应侧重于在被忽视的专科中推广工具。
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
World Journal of Surgery
World Journal of Surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.80%
发文量
460
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: World Journal of Surgery is the official publication of the International Society of Surgery/Societe Internationale de Chirurgie (iss-sic.com). Under the editorship of Dr. Julie Ann Sosa, World Journal of Surgery provides an in-depth, international forum for the most authoritative information on major clinical problems in the fields of clinical and experimental surgery, surgical education, and socioeconomic aspects of surgical care. Contributions are reviewed and selected by a group of distinguished surgeons from across the world who make up the Editorial Board.
期刊最新文献
Safety of thyroidectomy as day care surgery at a rural setting in Eastern Uganda. Reduction in perforated appendicitis incidence between rural and urban populations after introducing social health insurance in Vietnam: A population-based study. Author's reply: Is routine histopathological analysis of hemorrhoidectomy specimens necessary? A systematic review and meta-analysis. The utility of alcohol saliva test strips compared to the breathalyzer in trauma patients in a resource-limited setting. Author's reply: Impact of surgical specialization on emergency upper gastrointestinal surgery outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
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