Literature DB >> 26670801

Predicting outcomes: Is there utility in risk scores?

Duminda N Wijeysundera1,2,3,4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This review discusses the utility of risk scores, specifically, the role of preoperative risk scores in guiding the management of surgical patients, approaches to evaluate the quality of risk scores, and limitations to consider when applying risk scores in clinical practice. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: This review shows how accurate predictions of perioperative risk can help inform patients and clinicians with respect to decision-making around surgery; identify patients who warrant further specialized investigations, new interventions intended to decrease risk, modifications in planned operative procedures, or intensification of postoperative monitoring; and facilitate fairer comparisons of outcomes between providers and hospitals. A preoperative risk score formally integrates several pieces of clinical information (e.g., age, comorbid disease, laboratory tests) to arrive at an overall estimate of an individual patient's expected risk for specific postoperative adverse events. A good risk score should be simple to incorporate in clinical practice, reliable when applied by different raters, and accurate at predicting postoperative risk. Several analytical methods (e.g., receiver operating characteristic curves, likelihood ratios, risk reclassification tables, observed vs predicted plots) are required to characterize the relevant domains that encompass the prognostic accuracy of a risk score. External validation is critical in determining whether the predictive accuracy of a risk score is preserved when applied to new settings, populations, or outcome events.
CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative risk scores help inform perioperative clinical decision-making. Future research must determine how estimates of preoperative risk can be updated with information from the intraoperative period, how risk information should be communicated to patients, and which interventions can improve outcomes among patients within newly identified risk strata.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26670801     DOI: 10.1007/s12630-015-0537-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Anaesth        ISSN: 0832-610X            Impact factor:   5.063


  7 in total

1.  Postoperative visits by dedicated anesthesiologists in patients with elevated troponin: a retrospective cohort study evaluating postoperative care utility and early detection of complications.

Authors:  Annemarie Akkermans; Lisette M Vernooij; Wilton A van Klei; Judith A van Waes
Journal:  Perioper Med (Lond)       Date:  2020-07-16

2.  Clinical decision tools are needed to identify HIV-positive patients at high risk for poor outcomes after initiation of antiretroviral therapy.

Authors:  Margaret L McNairy; Elaine J Abrams; Miriam Rabkin; Wafaa M El-Sadr
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2017-04-18       Impact factor: 11.069

3.  Accuracy of the Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity score and the Nottingham risk score in hip fracture patients in Sweden - A prospective observational study.

Authors:  M H Jonsson; P Bentzer; A Turkiewicz; A Hommel
Journal:  Acta Anaesthesiol Scand       Date:  2018-04-23       Impact factor: 2.105

4.  External Validation Of The Surgical Mortality Probability Model (S-MPM) In Patients Undergoing Non-Cardiac Surgery.

Authors:  Sebastian Kazimierczak; Anita Rybicka; Jochen Strauss; Malgorzata Schram; Arkadiusz Kazimierczak; Elżbieta Grochans
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2019-10-04       Impact factor: 2.423

5.  Validation of the Preoperative Score to Predict Postoperative Mortality (POSPOM) in Germany.

Authors:  Yannik C Layer; Jan Menzenbach; Yonah L Layer; Andreas Mayr; Tobias Hilbert; Markus Velten; Andreas Hoeft; Maria Wittmann
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-01-27       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  The impact of the incorporation of a feasible postoperative mortality model at the Post-Anaesthestic Care Unit (PACU) on postoperative clinical deterioration: A pragmatic trial with 5,353 patients.

Authors:  Claudia de Souza Gutierrez; Katia Bottega; Stela Maris de Jezus Castro; Gabriela Leal Gravina; Eduardo Kohls Toralles; Otávio Ritter Silveira Martins; Wolnei Caumo; Luciana Cadore Stefani
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-11-15       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Identification of Requirements for a Postoperative Pediatric Pain Risk Communication Tool: Focus Group Study With Clinicians and Family Members.

Authors:  Michael D Wood; Kim Correa; Peijia Ding; Rama Sreepada; Kent C Loftsgard; Isabel Jordan; Nicholas C West; Simon D Whyte; Elodie Portales-Casamar; Matthias Görges
Journal:  JMIR Pediatr Parent       Date:  2022-07-15
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.