IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v37y2017i1p101-112.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accuracy of the Surgeons’ Clinical Prediction of Postoperative Major Complications Using a Visual Analog Scale

Author

Listed:
  • John C. Woodfield
  • Peter M. Sagar
  • Dinesh K. Thekkinkattil
  • Praveen Gogu
  • Lindsay D. Plank
  • Dermot Burke

Abstract

Background . Although the risk factors that contribute to postoperative complications are well recognized, prediction in the context of a particular patient is more difficult. We were interested in using a visual analog scale (VAS) to capture surgeons’ prediction of the risk of a major complication and to examine whether this could be improved. Methods . The study was performed in 3 stages. In phase I, the surgeon assessed the risk of a major complication on a 100-mm VAS immediately before and after surgery. A quality control questionnaire was designed to check if the VAS was being scored as a linear scale. In phase II, a VAS with 6 subscales for different areas of clinical risk was introduced. In phase III, predictions were completed following the presentation of detailed feedback on the accuracy of prediction of complications. Results . In total, 1295 predictions were made by 58 surgeons in 859 patients. Eight surgeons did not use a linear scale (6 logarithmic, 2 used 4 categories of risk). Surgeons made a meaningful prediction of major complications (preoperative median score 40 mm for complications v. 22 mm for no complication, P

Suggested Citation

  • John C. Woodfield & Peter M. Sagar & Dinesh K. Thekkinkattil & Praveen Gogu & Lindsay D. Plank & Dermot Burke, 2017. "Accuracy of the Surgeons’ Clinical Prediction of Postoperative Major Complications Using a Visual Analog Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(1), pages 101-112, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:1:p:101-112
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X16651875
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X16651875
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X16651875?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:1:p:101-112. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.