The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Global patient outcomes after elective surgery: prospective cohort study in 27 low-, middle- and high-income countries
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: As global initiatives increase patient access to surgical treatments, there remains a need to understand the adverse effects of surgery and define appropriate levels of perioperative care. METHODS: We designed a prospective international 7-day cohort study of outcomes following elective adult inpatient surgery in 27 countries. The primary outcome was in-hospital complications. Secondary outcomes were death following a complication (failure to rescue) and death in hospital. Process measures were admission to critical care immediately after surgery or to treat a complication and duration of hospital stay. A single definition of critical care was used for all countries. RESULTS: A total of 474 hospitals in 19 high-, 7 middle- and 1 low-income country were included in the primary analysis. Data included 44 814 patients with a median hospital stay of 4 (range 2-7) days. A total of 7508 patients (16.8%) developed one or more postoperative complication and 207 died (0.5%). The overall mortality among patients who developed complications was 2.8%. Mortality following complications ranged from 2.4% for pulmonary embolism to 43.9% for cardiac arrest. A total of 4360 (9.7%) patients were admitted to a critical care unit as routine immediately after surgery, of whom 2198 (50.4%) developed a complication, with 105 (2.4%) deaths. A total of 1233 patients (16.4%) were admitted to a critical care unit to treat complications, with 119 (9.7%) deaths. Despite lower baseline risk, outcomes were similar in low- and middle-income compared with high-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Poor patient outcomes are common after inpatient surgery. Global initiatives to increase access to surgical treatments should also address the need for safe perioperative care. STUDY REGISTRATION: ISRCTN51817007
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Biccard, B. M., Madiba, T. E., Kluyts, H.-L., Munlemvo, D. M., Madzimbamuto, F. D., Basenero, A., Gordon, C. S., Youssouf, C., Rakotoarison, S. R., Gobin, V., et al. (2018) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)30001-1 · Cited by 580
Age of patients undergoing surgery
Fowler, A. J., Abbott, T. E. F., Prowle, J., & Pearse, R. M. (2019) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.11148 · Cited by 417
Ferrando, C., Soro, M., Unzueta, C., Suarez-Sipmann, F., Canet, J., Librero, J., Pozo, N., Peiró, S., Llombart, A., León, I., et al. (2018) · The Lancet Respiratory Medicine · doi:10.1016/s2213-2600(18)30024-9 · Cited by 257
Improving detection of patient deterioration in the general hospital ward environment
Vincent, J.-L., Einav, S., Pearse, R., Jaber, S., Kranke, P., Overdyk, F. J., Whitaker, D. K., Gordo, F., Dahan, A., & Hoeft, A. (2018) · European Journal of Anaesthesiology · doi:10.1097/eja.0000000000000798 · Cited by 174
McIsaac, D. I., Kidd, G., Gillis, C., Branje, K., Al-Bayati, M., Baxi, A., Grudzinski, A. L., Boland, L., Veroniki, A.-A., Wolfe, D., et al. (2025) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-081164 · Cited by 168
Metadata
- Venue
- British Journal of Anaesthesia
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-11
- Volume
- 117
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 601-609
- ISSN
- 0007-0912 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2763593805
- Cited by
- 614
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 34.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Global patient outcomes after elective surgery: prospective cohort study in 27 low-, middle- and high-income countries. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/bja/aew316
- The paper
- Global patient outcomes after elective surgery: prospective cohort study in 27 low-, middle- and high-income countries. (2016). British Journal of Anaesthesia. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aew316
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.