Preoperative risk prediction tools that predict morbidity risk in adults undergoing surgery: An Evidence Review
Wale, A.; Ayres, T.; Khatoon, S.; Fox-McNally, A.; Morgan, C.; Morgan, H.; Shaw, H.; Davies, J. R.; Edwards, R. T.; Dunstan, C.; Edwards, A. G.; Cooper, A.; Lewis, R.
Show abstract
Risk prediction tools play a critical role in preoperative care by estimating the likelihood of adverse outcomes, including mortality, morbidity, and postoperative complications. In low-risk surgical settings such as surgical hubs, accurate risk prediction is particularly valuable. The aim of this review was to identify and map the evidence for 14 validated pre-operative surgical risk prediction tools currently used in Wales within any elective, or non-emergency surgical setting, and to provide a more in-depth look at the findings for a selection of tools deemed to be the most applicable on a population level to the context of surgical hubs. Included studies were published between 1999 and 2024. No evidence was found for two of the risk prediction tools however, a total of 118 studies were identified across 12 risk prediction tools. None of the evidence found was looking at the predictive ability of risk prediction tools for selecting patients suitable for surgical hubs. The tools were used across a range of surgical specialties and measured composite complications, individual complications, and healthcare utilisation and recovery measures. No risk prediction tool adequately predicted complications across all surgical specialties. Among the included studies, there was considerable heterogeneity in which surgical specialties the risk prediction tools were used for, how complications were defined, and which measures were used to determine a tools predictive ability. This makes direct comparisons very challenging. Four tools were selected as being potentially the most impactful at a population level for a more in-depth look at the findings: ACS NSQIP, P-POSSUM, RCRI, ASA classification system. A total of 76 studies were identified across these 4 tools. Key findings for the four risk prediction tools of interest are described. Overall, no one tool was identified that adequately predicted complications across all surgical specialties. The predictive ability of the tools varied across different surgical specialties. Further research using consistent methods is needed to better understand the predictive ability of risk prediction tools and allow a robust evaluation. Given no single risk prediction tool adequately predicted complications across all surgical specialties, it may be likely that some tools are better suited for specific surgery types or that a combination of risk prediction tools may be needed to adequately assess an individuals level of risk. Funding statementThe authors and their Institutions were funded for this work by the Health and Care Research Wales Evidence Centre, itself funded by Health and Care Research Wales on behalf of Welsh Government.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Perioperative mortality in low-, middle-, and high-income countries: Protocol for a multi-level meta-regression analysis 96%
- Unplanned Hospital Visits after Ambulatory Surgical Care 94%
- Study protocol for COvid-19 Vascular sERvice (COVER) study: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the provision, practice and outcomes of vascular surgery 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Surgery & COVID-19: A rapid scoping review of the impact of COVID-19 on surgical services during public health emergencies 95%
- Feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial of pre and postoperative nutritional supplementation in major lung surgery 95%
- Personal protective equipment for reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers involved in emergency trauma surgery during the pandemic: a systematic review protocol 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Preoperative predictions of in-hospital mortality using electronic medical record data 94%
- Surgical activity in England and Wales during the COVID-19 pandemic: a nationwide observational cohort study 93%
- Effect of Telemedicine Support for Intraoperative Anaesthesia Care on Postoperative Outcomes: The TECTONICS Randomised Clinical Trial 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Quantification of the association between predisposing health conditions, demographic, and behavioural factors with hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission, and death from COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis 90%
- Adverse events of iron and/or erythropoiesis-stimulating agent therapy in preoperatively anaemic elective surgery patients: a systematic review 90%
- The Impact of Income Support Systems on Healthcare Quality and Functional Capacity in Workers with Low Back Pain: A Realist Review 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Effect of Virtually Led Value-Based Preoperative Assessment on Safety, Efficiency, and Patient and Professional Satisfaction 94%
- Artificial Intelligence in laryngeal endoscopy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis 90%
- Procalcitonin to Predict Severity of Acute Cholangitis and Need for Urgent Biliary Decompression: Systematic Scoping Review 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.