美国外科医生学会风险计算器对不同外科亚专科预测准确性的荟萃分析

IF 0.6 Q4 SURGERY Surgery in practice and science Pub Date : 2024-02-13 DOI:10.1016/j.sipas.2024.100238
Alyssa M. Goodwin, Steven S. Kurapaty, Jacqueline E. Inglis, Srikanth N. Divi, Alpesh A. Patel, Wellington K. Hsu
{"title":"美国外科医生学会风险计算器对不同外科亚专科预测准确性的荟萃分析","authors":"Alyssa M. Goodwin,&nbsp;Steven S. Kurapaty,&nbsp;Jacqueline E. Inglis,&nbsp;Srikanth N. Divi,&nbsp;Alpesh A. Patel,&nbsp;Wellington K. Hsu","doi":"10.1016/j.sipas.2024.100238","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) provides risk estimates of postoperative complications. While several studies have examined the accuracy of the ACS-Surgical Risk Calculator (SRC) within a single specialty, the respective conclusions are limited by sample size. We sought to conduct a meta-analysis to determine the accuracy of the ACS-SRC among various surgical specialties.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Clinical studies that utilized the ACS-SRC, predicted complication rates compared to actual rates, and analyzed at least one metric reported by ACS-SRC met the inclusion criteria. Data for each specialty were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effect models and analyzed with the binary random-effect model to produce risk difference (RD) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) using Open Meta[A<em>nalyst</em>].</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The initial search yielded 281 studies and, after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 53 studies remained with a total sample of 30,134 patients spanning 10 surgical specialties. When considering any complication and death, the ACS-SRC significantly underpredicted complications for: Orthopaedic Surgery (RD –0.067, <em>p</em> = 0.008), Spine (RD -0.027, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), Urology (RD -0.03, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), Surgical Oncology (RD -0.045, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), and Gynecology (RD -0.098, <em>p</em> = 0.01).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The ACS-SRC proved useful in General, Acute Care, Colorectal, Otolaryngology, and Cardiothoracic Surgery, but significantly underpredicted complication rates in Spine, Orthopaedics, Urology, Surgical Oncology, and Gynecology. These data indicate the ACS-SRC is a reliable predictor in some specialties, but its use should be cautioned in the remaining specialties evaluated here.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74890,"journal":{"name":"Surgery in practice and science","volume":"16 ","pages":"Article 100238"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666262024000056/pdfft?md5=d20a6752b84c885e3126caa50207a7e2&pid=1-s2.0-S2666262024000056-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A meta-analysis of the American college of surgeons risk calculator's predictive accuracy among different surgical sub-specialties\",\"authors\":\"Alyssa M. Goodwin,&nbsp;Steven S. Kurapaty,&nbsp;Jacqueline E. Inglis,&nbsp;Srikanth N. Divi,&nbsp;Alpesh A. Patel,&nbsp;Wellington K. Hsu\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.sipas.2024.100238\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) provides risk estimates of postoperative complications. While several studies have examined the accuracy of the ACS-Surgical Risk Calculator (SRC) within a single specialty, the respective conclusions are limited by sample size. We sought to conduct a meta-analysis to determine the accuracy of the ACS-SRC among various surgical specialties.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Clinical studies that utilized the ACS-SRC, predicted complication rates compared to actual rates, and analyzed at least one metric reported by ACS-SRC met the inclusion criteria. Data for each specialty were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effect models and analyzed with the binary random-effect model to produce risk difference (RD) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) using Open Meta[A<em>nalyst</em>].</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The initial search yielded 281 studies and, after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 53 studies remained with a total sample of 30,134 patients spanning 10 surgical specialties. When considering any complication and death, the ACS-SRC significantly underpredicted complications for: Orthopaedic Surgery (RD –0.067, <em>p</em> = 0.008), Spine (RD -0.027, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), Urology (RD -0.03, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), Surgical Oncology (RD -0.045, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), and Gynecology (RD -0.098, <em>p</em> = 0.01).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The ACS-SRC proved useful in General, Acute Care, Colorectal, Otolaryngology, and Cardiothoracic Surgery, but significantly underpredicted complication rates in Spine, Orthopaedics, Urology, Surgical Oncology, and Gynecology. These data indicate the ACS-SRC is a reliable predictor in some specialties, but its use should be cautioned in the remaining specialties evaluated here.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74890,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgery in practice and science\",\"volume\":\"16 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100238\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666262024000056/pdfft?md5=d20a6752b84c885e3126caa50207a7e2&pid=1-s2.0-S2666262024000056-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgery in practice and science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666262024000056\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgery in practice and science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666262024000056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景美国外科学院国家外科质量改进计划(ACS-NSQIP)提供了术后并发症的风险估计值。虽然有几项研究对 ACS 手术风险计算器(SRC)在单一专科内的准确性进行了研究,但各自的结论都受到样本量的限制。我们试图进行一项荟萃分析,以确定 ACS-SRC 在各外科专科中的准确性。研究设计使用 ACS-SRC、预测并发症发生率并与实际发生率进行比较、分析 ACS-SRC 报告的至少一项指标的临床研究均符合纳入标准。使用DerSimonian和Laird随机效应模型对每个专科的数据进行汇总,并使用Open Meta[分析师]对二元随机效应模型进行分析,以得出风险差异(RD)和95%置信区间(CIs)。结果最初的搜索结果为281项研究,在应用纳入和排除标准后,共剩下53项研究,总样本为30134名患者,涉及10个外科专科。考虑到任何并发症和死亡,ACS-SRC 对以下并发症的预测明显偏低:骨外科(RD -0.067,p = 0.008)、脊柱外科(RD -0.027,p = 0.001)、泌尿外科(RD -0.03,p = 0.001)、肿瘤外科(RD -0.045,p = 0.001)和妇科(RD -0.098,p = 0.01)。结论 ACS-SRC 在普通外科、急症护理、结直肠外科、耳鼻喉科和心胸外科中证明是有用的,但在脊柱外科、骨科、泌尿外科、肿瘤外科和妇科中对并发症发生率的预测明显不足。这些数据表明,ACS-SRC 是某些专科的可靠预测指标,但在本文评估的其余专科中应谨慎使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A meta-analysis of the American college of surgeons risk calculator's predictive accuracy among different surgical sub-specialties

Background

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) provides risk estimates of postoperative complications. While several studies have examined the accuracy of the ACS-Surgical Risk Calculator (SRC) within a single specialty, the respective conclusions are limited by sample size. We sought to conduct a meta-analysis to determine the accuracy of the ACS-SRC among various surgical specialties.

Study design

Clinical studies that utilized the ACS-SRC, predicted complication rates compared to actual rates, and analyzed at least one metric reported by ACS-SRC met the inclusion criteria. Data for each specialty were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effect models and analyzed with the binary random-effect model to produce risk difference (RD) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) using Open Meta[Analyst].

Results

The initial search yielded 281 studies and, after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 53 studies remained with a total sample of 30,134 patients spanning 10 surgical specialties. When considering any complication and death, the ACS-SRC significantly underpredicted complications for: Orthopaedic Surgery (RD –0.067, p = 0.008), Spine (RD -0.027, p < 0.001), Urology (RD -0.03, p < 0.001), Surgical Oncology (RD -0.045, p < 0.001), and Gynecology (RD -0.098, p = 0.01).

Conclusion

The ACS-SRC proved useful in General, Acute Care, Colorectal, Otolaryngology, and Cardiothoracic Surgery, but significantly underpredicted complication rates in Spine, Orthopaedics, Urology, Surgical Oncology, and Gynecology. These data indicate the ACS-SRC is a reliable predictor in some specialties, but its use should be cautioned in the remaining specialties evaluated here.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
38 days
期刊最新文献
Surgical sharp debridement alongside maggot debridement therapy (MDT) for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs): A systematic review of case reports. Is there an impact of surgeon's experience on in-hospital outcome in patients with operatively treated proximal humerus and humerus shaft fractures? The CRP/PAB ratio outperforms the LRINEC score in early diagnosis of Fournier's gangrene. Operating room times differ for surgical fixation of metacarpal fractures: An analysis of two principally different techniques. Higher compliance with the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol improves postoperative recovery and 6-month mortality in upper gastrointestinal surgery.
×
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