The DOI matches its Crossref record; 124 of the 124 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The measurement and monitoring of surgical adverse events
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical adverse events contribute significantly to postoperative morbidity, yet the measurement and monitoring of events is often imprecise and of uncertain validity. Given the trend of decreasing length of hospital stay and the increase in use of innovative surgical techniques--particularly minimally invasive and endoscopic procedures--accurate measurement and monitoring of adverse events is crucial. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this methodological review was to identify a selection of common and potentially avoidable surgical adverse events and to assess whether they could be reliably and validly measured, to review methods for monitoring their occurrence and to identify examples of effective monitoring systems for selected events. This review is a comprehensive attempt to examine the quality of the definition, measurement, reporting and monitoring of selected events that are known to cause significant postoperative morbidity and mortality. METHODS - SELECTION OF SURGICAL ADVERSE EVENTS: Four adverse events were selected on the basis of their frequency of occurrence and likelihood of evidence of measurement and monitoring: (1) surgical wound infection; (2) anastomotic leak; (3) deep vein thrombosis (DVT); (4) surgical mortality. Surgical wound infection and DVT are common events that cause significant postoperative morbidity. Anastomotic leak is a less common event, but risk of fatality is associated with delay in recognition, detection and investigation. Surgical mortality was selected because of the effort known to have been invested in developing systems for monitoring surgical death, both in the UK and internationally. Systems for monitoring surgical wound infection were also included in the review. METHODS - LITERATURE SEARCH: Thirty separate, systematic literature searches of core health and biomedical bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HealthSTAR and the Cochrane Library) were conducted. The reference lists of retrieved articles were reviewed to locate additional articles. A matrix was developed whereby different literature and study designs were reviewed for each of the surgical adverse events. Each article eligible for inclusion was independently reviewed by two assessors. METHODS - CRITICAL APPRAISAL: Studies were appraised according to predetermined assessment criteria. Definitions and grading scales were assessed for: content, criterion and construct validity; repeatability; reproducibility; and practicality (surgical wound infection and anastomotic leak). Monitoring systems for surgical wound infection and surgical mortality were assessed on the following criteria: (1) coverage of the system; (2) whether or not denominator data were collected; (3) whether standard and agreed definitions were used; (4) inclusion of risk adjustment; (5) issues related to data collection; (6) postdischarge surveillance; (7) output in terms of feedback and wider dissemination. RESULTS - SURGICAL WOUND INFECTION: A total of 41 different definitions and 13 grading scales of surgical wound infection were identified from 82 studies. Definitions of surgical wound infection varied from presence of pus to complex definitions such as those proposed by the Centres for Disease Control in the USA. A small body of literature has been published on the content, criterion and construct validity of different definitions, and comparisons have been made against wound assessment scales and multidimensional indices. There are examples of comprehensive hospital-based monitoring systems of surgical wound infection, mainly under the auspices of nosocomial surveillance. To date, however, there is little evidence of systematic measurement and monitoring of surgical wound infection after hospital discharge. RESULTS - ANASTOMOTIC LEAK: Over 40 definitions of anastomotic leak were extracted from 107 studies of upper gastrointestinal, hepatopancreaticobiliary and lower gastrointestinal surgery. No formal evaluations were found that assessed the validity or reliability of definitions or severity scales of anastomotic leak. One definition was proposed during a national consensus workshop, but no evidence of its use was found in the surgical literature. The lack of a single definition or gold standard hampers comparison of postoperative anastomotic leak rates between studies and institutions. RESULTS - DEEP VEIN THROMBOSIS: Although a critical review of the DVT literature could not be completed within the realms of this review, it was evident that a number of new techniques for the detection and diagnosis of DVT have emerged in the last 20 years. The group recommends a separate review be undertaken of the different diagnostic tests to detect DVT. RESULTS - SURGICAL MORTALITY MONITORING SYSTEMS: The definition of surgical mortality is relatively consistent between monitoring systems, but duration of follow-up of death postdischarge varies considerably. The majority of systems report in-hospital mortality rates; only some ha
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
Cites
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use
Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (1989) · Cited by 9,595
Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.10.001 · Cited by 5,220
Brennan, T. A., Leape, L. L., Laird, N. M., Hebert, L., Localio, A. R., Lawthers, A. G., Newhouse, J. P., Weiler, P. C., & Hiatt, H. H. (1991) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199102073240604 · Cited by 4,627
The Long-Term Clinical Course of Acute Deep Venous Thrombosis
Prandoni, P., Lensing, A. W. A., Cogo, A., Cuppini, S., Villalta, S., Carta, M., Cattelan, A. M., Polistena, P., Bernardi, E., & Prins, M. H. (1996) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-125-1-199607010-00001 · Cited by 2,109
HALEY, R. W., CULVER, D. H., WHITE, J. W., MORGAN, W. M., EMORI, T. G., MUNN, V. P., & HOOTON, T. M. (1985) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113990 · Cited by 2,038
Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials.
Fitzpatrick, Davey, Buxton, & Jones (1998) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta2140 · Cited by 1,715
The Epidemiology of Wound Infection: A 10-Year Prospective Study of 62,939 Wounds
Cruse, P. J. E., & Foord, R. (1980) · Surgical Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/s0039-6109(16)42031-1 · Cited by 1,398
Horan, T. C., Gaynes, R. P., Martone, W. J., Jarvis, W. R., & Emori, T. G. (1992) · Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology · doi:10.1017/s0195941700015241 · Cited by 1,396
Cited by
Transition from acute to chronic pain after surgery
Glare, P., Aubrey, K. R., & Myles, P. S. (2019) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(19)30352-6 · Cited by 914
Semple, J. L., Sharpe, S., Murnaghan, M. L., Theodoropoulos, J., & Metcalfe, K. A. (2015) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.3929 · Cited by 190
Brown, C., Hofer, T., Johal, A., Thomson, R., Nicholl, J., Franklin, B. D., & Lilford, R. J. (2008) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2007.023655 · Cited by 100
Metadata
- Authors
- Bruce, J., Russell, E. M., Mollison, J., & Krukowski, Z. H.
- Venue
- Health Technology Assessment
- Published
- 2001
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 22
- Pages
- 1-194
- ISSN
- 1366-5278 (ISSN-L)
- 2046-4924
- OpenAlex
- W2313674104
- Cited by
- 361
- References
- 124
- FWCI
- 7.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
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: The measurement and monitoring of surgical adverse events. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3310/hta5220
- The paper
- Bruce, J., Russell, E. M., Mollison, J., & Krukowski, Z. H. (2001). The measurement and monitoring of surgical adverse events. Health Technology Assessment. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta5220
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.