Sismondi P, Sinistrero G, Zola P, Volpe T, Ferraris R, Castelli G L, Giai M
Istituto di Ginecologia e Ostetricia, Universitá, di Torino, Italy.
Radiother Oncol. 1989 Jan;14(1):9-17. doi: 10.1016/0167-8140(89)90003-0.
Ninety-six articles published in English, French and Italian between 1938 and 1986 have been examined in order to analyze the classifications and reporting methods used by different researchers. Specialty and nationality of authors, classifications used, organs, systems and anatomic sites considered, weight given to the most frequently encountered complications are studied. Fifty-nine papers make no use of classification of complications of any kind, neither by onset time, nor by severity, but simply describe the observed events. The remaining 37 papers use a classification based on varying criteria. Thirty-four authors use a classification by severity according to different criteria; four authors classify complications according to the treatment required. In the remaining 30 papers a true scale is used. A total of 22 classifications emerges from these papers; in eight cases a previously published classification is used. The weight assigned by different authors to specific complications has been compared. The following main points emerge from the analysis: about two authors out of three simply describe the observed complications; 30 rely on a true scale of severity, but 22 different grading systems are used. Most classifications do not cover all possible complications, both surgical and radiotherapeutic, but concentrate on those complications which are typically generated by author's therapeutic approach. Only three take into account complications related to different treatment modalities. The observation period is not standardized: published data derive from follow-up times spanning from some months to many years. Authors mainly focus their interest on gastrointestinal and/or urinary complications; other organs and systems are rarely considered.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
为了分析不同研究者所使用的分类方法和报告方式,我们对1938年至1986年间以英文、法文和意大利文发表的96篇文章进行了研究。研究内容包括作者的专业和国籍、所使用的分类方法、所考虑的器官、系统及解剖部位,以及对最常见并发症的重视程度。59篇论文未使用任何并发症分类方法,既未按发病时间分类,也未按严重程度分类,只是简单描述所观察到的事件。其余37篇论文使用了基于不同标准的分类方法。34位作者根据不同标准按严重程度进行分类;4位作者根据所需治疗对并发症进行分类。在其余30篇论文中使用了真正的评分标准。这些论文共出现了22种分类方法;其中8种情况使用了先前发表的分类方法。我们比较了不同作者对特定并发症的重视程度。分析得出以下要点:约三分之二的作者只是简单描述所观察到的并发症;30位作者依赖真正的严重程度评分标准,但使用了22种不同的分级系统。大多数分类方法并未涵盖所有可能的手术和放疗并发症,而是集中于作者治疗方法通常所引发的并发症。只有三种分类方法考虑了与不同治疗方式相关的并发症。观察期未标准化:已发表的数据来自几个月到多年不等的随访时间。作者主要关注胃肠道和/或泌尿系统并发症;很少考虑其他器官和系统。(摘要截选至250字)