Evidence mapPaperPMID 24535688Full record

GuidelineDer Anaesthesist2014

[Preoperative risk evaluation of adult patients prior to elective non-cardiac surgery: follow-up survey of the recommendations published in 2010].

A B Böhmer, J Defosse, G Geldner, E Mertens, B Zwissler, F Wappler, German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, German Society of Surgery and Internal Medicine

Abstract readEnglish AbstractGuideline
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in Der Anaesthesist, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

A B BöhmerKlinik für Anästhesiologie und operative Intensivmedizin, Klinikum der Universität Witten/Herdecke, Kliniken der Stadt Köln gGmbH, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109, Köln, Deutschland, boehmera@kliniken-koeln.de.
J Defosse
G Geldner
E Mertens
B Zwissler
F Wappler
German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine
German Society of Surgery and Internal Medicine

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe joint recommendations of the German Societies of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Surgery and Internal Medicine on preoperative evaluation of adult patients prior to elective, non-cardiac surgery published in November 2010 were the first practical and comprehensive guidelines for preoperative evaluation available to anesthetists in Germany.

aimThis study was carried out to analyze the state of implementation of these guidelines into clinical practice as well as changes in strategies for assessing perioperative risk from the viewpoint of anesthesia personnel in Germany. MATERIAL AND

methodsA 25-item questionnaire concerning general characteristics of workplaces, cognizance, reasonability and convenience of the joint recommendations was developed as an online survey. Furthermore, changes in strategies for preoperative evaluation were polled.

resultsA total of 1,840 anesthetists completed the questionnaire. The results showed that 84.2 % were acquainted with the joint recommendations, 57.3 % evaluated them as completely reasonable and 18.2 % as partly reasonable. A total of 71.4 % indicated that the joint recommendations were implemented completely or partly in their department strategies for preoperative evaluation. From the viewpoint of personnel, anamnesis and physical examination were performed more frequently by 25.7 % while routine diagnostic testing was ordered less frequently by 39.1 %. Advantages by implementing the joint recommendations (e.g. simplification for medical staff and patients, decrease of costs, reduction of radiological examinations) were seen by 45.5 %. Problems, such as increasing expenditure of time and personnel due to implementation were mentioned by 20.3 %.

conclusionThe joint recommendations are well known and positively rated among anesthetists in Germany responding to the questionnaire reflecting an effective implementation process over the last 2 years. The anesthetists who completed the questionnaire stated that the use of the recommendations leads to a more reasonable approach in preoperative risk evaluation which contributes to an increase in patient safety and satisfaction.

Indexed as

Surgical Procedures, OperativeAdultAnesthesiaAnesthesiologyFollow-Up StudiesGermanyGuideline AdherenceHealth Care SurveysHumansInternetPatient SafetyPhysical ExaminationPreoperative CareRisk AssessmentSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.