Kevin Gianaris, Brooke Stephanian, Sabin Karki, Shailvi Gupta, Amila Ratnayake, Adam L Kushner, Reinou S Groen
{"title":"全球外科手术评估和数据收集工具的现状:范围综述。","authors":"Kevin Gianaris, Brooke Stephanian, Sabin Karki, Shailvi Gupta, Amila Ratnayake, Adam L Kushner, Reinou S Groen","doi":"10.1002/wjs.12380","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":23926,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The state of global surgery assessment and data collection tools: A scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Kevin Gianaris, Brooke Stephanian, Sabin Karki, Shailvi Gupta, Amila Ratnayake, Adam L Kushner, Reinou S Groen\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/wjs.12380\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23926,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/wjs.12380\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wjs.12380","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The state of global surgery assessment and data collection tools: A scoping review.
Background: 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.
Methods: 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.
Results: 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.
Conclusions: 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.
期刊介绍:
World Journal of Surgery is the official publication of the International Society of Surgery/Societe Internationale de Chirurgie (iss-sic.com). Under the editorship of Dr. Julie Ann Sosa, World Journal of Surgery provides an in-depth, international forum for the most authoritative information on major clinical problems in the fields of clinical and experimental surgery, surgical education, and socioeconomic aspects of surgical care. Contributions are reviewed and selected by a group of distinguished surgeons from across the world who make up the Editorial Board.