Gianaris Kevin, Stephanian Brooke, Karki Sabin, Gupta Shailvi, Ratnayake Amila, Kushner Adam L, Groen Reinou S
Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
World J Surg. 2024 Dec;48(12):2972-2989. doi: 10.1002/wjs.12380. Epub 2024 Oct 28.
There has been a proliferation of global surgery assessment tools designed for use in low- and middle-income countries. This scoping review sought to categorize and organize the breadth of global surgery assessment tools in the literature.
The search was conducted using PubMed from October 2022 to April 2023 according to PRISMA extension for scoping review guidelines. The search terms were (("global surgery"[All Fields]) AND ("assessment"[All Fields]) OR (data collection)). Only tools published in English that detailed surgical assessment tools designed for low- and middle-income countries were included.
The search resulted in 963 papers and 46 texts described unique tools that were included for the final review. Of these, 30 (65%) tools were quantitative, 1 (2%) qualitative, and 15 (33%) employed mixed-methods. 25 (54%) tools evaluated surgery in general, whereas 21 (46%) were focused on various surgical subspecialties. Qualitatively, major themes among the tools were noted. There was significant overlap of many tools.
Nonspecialty surgery was represented more than any specialty surgery and many specialties had little or no representation in the literature. Ideally, local leadership should be involved in surgical assessment tools. Different methodologies, such as checklists and observational studies, aimed to target varying aspects of surgery and had distinct strengths and weaknesses. Further efforts should focus on expanding tools in neglected specialties.
为低收入和中等收入国家设计的全球外科手术评估工具大量涌现。本范围综述旨在对文献中全球外科手术评估工具的广度进行分类和整理。
根据PRISMA扩展的范围综述指南,于2022年10月至2023年4月使用PubMed进行检索。检索词为((“全球外科手术”[所有字段]) AND (“评估”[所有字段]) OR (数据收集))。仅纳入以英文发表的、详细介绍为低收入和中等收入国家设计的外科手术评估工具。
检索得到963篇论文,46篇文献描述了最终纳入综述的独特工具。其中,30种(65%)工具为定量工具,1种(2%)为定性工具,15种(33%)采用混合方法。25种(54%)工具评估的是一般外科手术,而21种(46%)聚焦于各种外科亚专业。从定性角度来看,注意到了工具中的主要主题。许多工具存在显著重叠。
非专科手术的相关工具比任何专科手术的都多,许多专科在文献中的代表性很少或没有。理想情况下,当地领导应参与外科手术评估工具的制定。不同的方法,如检查表和观察性研究,旨在针对手术的不同方面,各有优缺点。未来应进一步努力扩展被忽视专科的工具。