Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Department of Urology, Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia, PA.
Ann Surg. 2023 Nov 1;278(5):e973-e980. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005883. Epub 2023 Apr 27.
The accurate assessment and grading of adverse events (AE) is essential to ensure comparisons between surgical procedures and outcomes. The current lack of a standardized severity grading system may limit our understanding of the true morbidity attributed to AEs in surgery. The aim of this study is to review the prevalence in which intraoperative adverse event (iAE) severity grading systems are used in the literature, evaluate the strengths and limitations of these systems, and appraise their applicability in clinical studies.
A systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were queried to yield all clinical studies reporting the proposal and/or the validation of iAE severity grading systems. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched separately to identify the articles citing the systems to grade iAEs identified in the first search.
Our search yielded 2957 studies, with 7 studies considered for the qualitative synthesis. Five studies considered only surgical/interventional iAEs, while 2 considered both surgical/interventional and anesthesiologic iAEs. Two included studies validated the iAE severity grading system prospectively. A total of 357 citations were retrieved, with an overall self/nonself-citation ratio of 0.17 (53/304). The majority of citing articles were clinical studies (44.1%). The average number of citations per year was 6.7 citations for each classification/severity system, with only 2.05 citations/year for clinical studies. Of the 158 clinical studies citing the severity grading systems, only 90 (56.9%) used them to grade the iAEs. The appraisal of applicability (mean%/median%) was below the 70% threshold in 3 domains: stakeholder involvement (46/47), clarity of presentation (65/67), and applicability (57/56).
Seven severity grading systems for iAEs have been published in the last decade. Despite the importance of collecting and grading the iAEs, these systems are poorly adopted, with only a few studies per year using them. A uniform globally implemented severity grading system is needed to produce comparable data across studies and develop strategies to decrease iAEs, further improving patient safety.
准确评估和分级不良事件(AE)对于确保手术程序和结果之间的比较至关重要。目前缺乏标准化的严重程度分级系统可能会限制我们对手术中 AE 真正发病率的理解。本研究旨在回顾文献中术中不良事件(iAE)严重程度分级系统的使用情况,评估这些系统的优缺点,并评价其在临床研究中的适用性。
按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目进行系统评价。在 PubMed、Web of Science 和 Scopus 中查询所有报告 iAE 严重程度分级系统建议和/或验证的临床研究。分别在 Google Scholar、Web of Science 和 Scopus 中搜索,以确定引用首次搜索中确定的 iAE 分级系统的文章。
我们的搜索产生了 2957 项研究,其中有 7 项研究被认为适合进行定性综合分析。五项研究仅考虑了外科/介入性 iAE,而两项研究则同时考虑了外科/介入性和麻醉性 iAE。两项纳入的研究前瞻性验证了 iAE 严重程度分级系统。共检索到 357 篇参考文献,总体自我/非自我引用率为 0.17(53/304)。引用文章主要为临床研究(44.1%)。每年每类/严重程度系统的平均引用数为 6.7 篇,而临床研究的每年引用数仅为 2.05 篇。在引用严重程度分级系统的 158 项临床研究中,只有 90 项(56.9%)使用这些系统来分级 iAE。适用性评估(平均%/中位数)在 3 个领域低于 70%的阈值:利益相关者参与(46/47)、表述清晰度(65/67)和适用性(57/56)。
过去十年中,已经发表了七种用于 iAE 的严重程度分级系统。尽管收集和分级 iAE 非常重要,但这些系统的应用率很低,每年只有少数研究使用这些系统。需要制定一种全球通用的严重程度分级系统,以便在研究中产生可比数据,并制定策略来减少 iAE,进一步提高患者安全性。