在择期非心脏手术前进行风险评估时评估功能能力的临床工具:范围界定综述。

IF 19.6 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Annals of Internal Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-12 DOI:10.7326/ANNALS-24-00413
Julian F Daza, Tyler R Chesney, Juan F Morales, Yuanxin Xue, Sandra Lee, Leandra A Amado, Bianca Pivetta, Arnaud R Mbadjeu Hondjeu, Rachel Jolley, Calvin Diep, Shabbir M H Alibhai, Peter M Smith, Erin D Kennedy, Elizabeth Racz, Luke Wilmshurst, Duminda N Wijeysundera
{"title":"在择期非心脏手术前进行风险评估时评估功能能力的临床工具:范围界定综述。","authors":"Julian F Daza, Tyler R Chesney, Juan F Morales, Yuanxin Xue, Sandra Lee, Leandra A Amado, Bianca Pivetta, Arnaud R Mbadjeu Hondjeu, Rachel Jolley, Calvin Diep, Shabbir M H Alibhai, Peter M Smith, Erin D Kennedy, Elizabeth Racz, Luke Wilmshurst, Duminda N Wijeysundera","doi":"10.7326/ANNALS-24-00413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Functional capacity is critical to preoperative risk assessment, yet guidance on its measurement in clinical practice remains lacking.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To identify functional capacity assessment tools studied before surgery and characterize the extent of evidence regarding performance, including in populations where assessment is confounded by noncardiopulmonary reasons.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EBM Reviews (until July 2024).</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Studies evaluating performance of functional capacity assessment tools administered before elective noncardiac surgery to stratify risk for postoperative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Study details, measurement properties, pragmatic qualities, and/or clinical utility metrics.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>6 categories of performance-based tests and 5 approaches using patient-reported exercise tolerance were identified. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) was the most studied tool (132 studies, 32 662 patients) followed by field walking tests (58 studies, 9393 patients) among performance-based tests. Among patient-reported assessments, the Duke Activity Status Index (14 studies, 3303 patients) and unstructured assessments (19 studies, 28 520 patients) were most researched. Most evidence focused on predictive validity (92% of studies), specifically accuracy in predicting cardiorespiratory complications. Several tools lacked evidence on reliability (test consistency across similar measurements), pragmatic qualities (feasibility of implementation), or concurrent criterion validity (correlation to gold standard). Only CPET had evidence on clinical utility (whether administration improved postoperative outcomes). Older adults (≥65 years) were well represented across studies, whereas there were minimal data in patients with obesity, lower-limb arthritis, and disability.</p><p><strong>Limitation: </strong>Synthesis focused on reported data without requesting missing information.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Though several tools for preoperative functional capacity assessment have been studied, research has overwhelmingly focused on CPET and only 1 aspect of validity (predictive validity). Important evidence gaps remain among vulnerable populations with obesity, arthritis, and physical disability.</p><p><strong>Primary funding source: </strong>None. (Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/ah7u5).</p>","PeriodicalId":7932,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":19.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Tools to Assess Functional Capacity During Risk Assessment Before Elective Noncardiac Surgery : A Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Julian F Daza, Tyler R Chesney, Juan F Morales, Yuanxin Xue, Sandra Lee, Leandra A Amado, Bianca Pivetta, Arnaud R Mbadjeu Hondjeu, Rachel Jolley, Calvin Diep, Shabbir M H Alibhai, Peter M Smith, Erin D Kennedy, Elizabeth Racz, Luke Wilmshurst, Duminda N Wijeysundera\",\"doi\":\"10.7326/ANNALS-24-00413\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Functional capacity is critical to preoperative risk assessment, yet guidance on its measurement in clinical practice remains lacking.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To identify functional capacity assessment tools studied before surgery and characterize the extent of evidence regarding performance, including in populations where assessment is confounded by noncardiopulmonary reasons.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EBM Reviews (until July 2024).</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Studies evaluating performance of functional capacity assessment tools administered before elective noncardiac surgery to stratify risk for postoperative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Study details, measurement properties, pragmatic qualities, and/or clinical utility metrics.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>6 categories of performance-based tests and 5 approaches using patient-reported exercise tolerance were identified. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) was the most studied tool (132 studies, 32 662 patients) followed by field walking tests (58 studies, 9393 patients) among performance-based tests. Among patient-reported assessments, the Duke Activity Status Index (14 studies, 3303 patients) and unstructured assessments (19 studies, 28 520 patients) were most researched. Most evidence focused on predictive validity (92% of studies), specifically accuracy in predicting cardiorespiratory complications. Several tools lacked evidence on reliability (test consistency across similar measurements), pragmatic qualities (feasibility of implementation), or concurrent criterion validity (correlation to gold standard). Only CPET had evidence on clinical utility (whether administration improved postoperative outcomes). Older adults (≥65 years) were well represented across studies, whereas there were minimal data in patients with obesity, lower-limb arthritis, and disability.</p><p><strong>Limitation: </strong>Synthesis focused on reported data without requesting missing information.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Though several tools for preoperative functional capacity assessment have been studied, research has overwhelmingly focused on CPET and only 1 aspect of validity (predictive validity). Important evidence gaps remain among vulnerable populations with obesity, arthritis, and physical disability.</p><p><strong>Primary funding source: </strong>None. (Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/ah7u5).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7932,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Internal Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":19.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Internal Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-24-00413\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-24-00413","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目的:确定术前研究的功能能力评估工具,并描述有关性能的证据范围,包括评估受非心肺原因干扰的人群:研究选择:研究选择:评估在择期非心脏手术前使用功能能力评估工具对术后结果进行风险分层的性能的研究:研究细节、测量特性、实用性和/或临床效用指标。数据综合:确定了 6 类基于性能的测试和 5 种使用患者报告运动耐量的方法。在基于表现的测试中,心肺运动测试(CPET)是研究最多的工具(132 项研究,32 662 名患者),其次是野外步行测试(58 项研究,9393 名患者)。在患者报告的评估中,研究最多的是杜克活动状态指数(14 项研究,3303 名患者)和非结构化评估(19 项研究,28520 名患者)。大多数证据都集中在预测有效性方面(92% 的研究),特别是预测心肺并发症的准确性。一些工具缺乏可靠性(类似测量的测试一致性)、实用性(实施的可行性)或并发标准有效性(与金标准的相关性)方面的证据。只有 CPET 有临床实用性(实施后是否能改善术后效果)方面的证据。老年人(≥65 岁)在各项研究中的代表性较高,而肥胖症、下肢关节炎和残疾患者的数据则很少:局限性:综述侧重于报告数据,未要求提供缺失信息:尽管已对多种术前功能能力评估工具进行了研究,但绝大多数研究都集中在 CPET 上,而且只关注了有效性的一个方面(预测有效性)。在肥胖、关节炎和身体残疾的弱势群体中,仍存在重要的证据缺口:主要资金来源:无。(开放科学框架:https://osf.io/ah7u5)。
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
Clinical Tools to Assess Functional Capacity During Risk Assessment Before Elective Noncardiac Surgery : A Scoping Review.

Background: Functional capacity is critical to preoperative risk assessment, yet guidance on its measurement in clinical practice remains lacking.

Purpose: To identify functional capacity assessment tools studied before surgery and characterize the extent of evidence regarding performance, including in populations where assessment is confounded by noncardiopulmonary reasons.

Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EBM Reviews (until July 2024).

Study selection: Studies evaluating performance of functional capacity assessment tools administered before elective noncardiac surgery to stratify risk for postoperative outcomes.

Data extraction: Study details, measurement properties, pragmatic qualities, and/or clinical utility metrics.

Data synthesis: 6 categories of performance-based tests and 5 approaches using patient-reported exercise tolerance were identified. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) was the most studied tool (132 studies, 32 662 patients) followed by field walking tests (58 studies, 9393 patients) among performance-based tests. Among patient-reported assessments, the Duke Activity Status Index (14 studies, 3303 patients) and unstructured assessments (19 studies, 28 520 patients) were most researched. Most evidence focused on predictive validity (92% of studies), specifically accuracy in predicting cardiorespiratory complications. Several tools lacked evidence on reliability (test consistency across similar measurements), pragmatic qualities (feasibility of implementation), or concurrent criterion validity (correlation to gold standard). Only CPET had evidence on clinical utility (whether administration improved postoperative outcomes). Older adults (≥65 years) were well represented across studies, whereas there were minimal data in patients with obesity, lower-limb arthritis, and disability.

Limitation: Synthesis focused on reported data without requesting missing information.

Conclusion: Though several tools for preoperative functional capacity assessment have been studied, research has overwhelmingly focused on CPET and only 1 aspect of validity (predictive validity). Important evidence gaps remain among vulnerable populations with obesity, arthritis, and physical disability.

Primary funding source: None. (Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/ah7u5).

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
Annals of Internal Medicine
Annals of Internal Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
23.90
自引率
1.80%
发文量
1136
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Established in 1927 by the American College of Physicians (ACP), Annals of Internal Medicine is the premier internal medicine journal. Annals of Internal Medicine’s mission is to promote excellence in medicine, enable physicians and other health care professionals to be well informed members of the medical community and society, advance standards in the conduct and reporting of medical research, and contribute to improving the health of people worldwide. To achieve this mission, the journal publishes a wide variety of original research, review articles, practice guidelines, and commentary relevant to clinical practice, health care delivery, public health, health care policy, medical education, ethics, and research methodology. In addition, the journal publishes personal narratives that convey the feeling and the art of medicine.
期刊最新文献
Correction: Diagnostic Discordance, Uncertainty, and Treatment Ambiguity in Community-Acquired Pneumonia. Illuminating the Value of Palliative Care in Cancer: A Path to Incentivizing High-Value Cancer Care. Increasing Incidence and Stable Mortality of Pancreatic Cancer in Young Americans. Information Disclosure, Medical Device Regulation, and Device Safety: The Case of Cook Celect IVC Filters. Oropouche Virus: A Rising Threat in the Western Hemisphere.
×
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