4.6 Review

Risk Stratification Tools for Predicting Morbidity and Mortality in Adult Patients Undergoing Major Surgery Qualitative Systematic Review

期刊

ANESTHESIOLOGY
卷 119, 期 4, 页码 959-981

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3182a4e94d

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute for Academic Anaesthesia, London, United Kingdom
  2. Frances and Augustus Newman Charitable Foundation, Bristol, United Kingdom
  3. Department of Health's National Institute for Health Research, London, United Kingdom
  4. University Hospitals Southampton National Health Service Foundation Trust/University of Southampton Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit, Southampton, United Kingdom
  5. Department of Health's National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Unit funding scheme, London, United Kingdom

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Risk stratification is essential for both clinical risk prediction and comparative audit. There are a variety of risk stratification tools available for use in major noncardiac surgery, but their discrimination and calibration have not previously been systematically reviewed in heterogeneous patient cohorts. Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Science were searched for studies published between January 1, 1980 and August 6, 2011 in adult patients undergoing major noncardiac, nonneurological surgery. Twenty-seven studies evaluating 34 risk stratification tools were identified which met inclusion criteria. The Portsmouth-Physiology and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and the Surgical Risk Scale were demonstrated to be the most consistently accurate tools that have been validated in multiple studies; however, both have limitations. Future work should focus on further evaluation of these and other parsimonious risk predictors, including validation in international cohorts. There is also a need for studies examining the impact that the use of these tools has on clinical decision making and patient outcome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据