Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine.

Please cite this paper as: Tayo A et al. (2012) Emerging point of care tests for influenza: innovation or status quo. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 291–298. Background  Point of care tests (POCTs) for influenza potentially offer earlier diagnosis, enabling specific treatment, infection control measures and greater patient convenience and satisfaction. Current POCTs have limited sensitivity, some cannot distinguish influenza types, none differentiate subtypes and are relatively expensive. Aims  To identify and characterise influenza POCTs expected to be available for clinical use in the UK by mid‐2013, highlighting those with potential benefits over existing tests. Methods  Potential developers of influenza POCTs were identified through known manufacturers’ websites, Medical Technology trade associations, the EuroScan International Network, an expert advisory group and by searching relevant online sources. Identified companies were asked to provide standard information on relevant technologies. Results  Fifty‐six companies were identified, and 29 (52%) responded, identifying 57 potentially relevant technologies. Of these, 40 (70%) were already available or had undetermined status and 5 (9%) were excluded as time to results took over 60 minutes. Of the remaining 12 emerging POCTs, 10 (83%) reportedly enabled differentiation of influenza types and eight differentiation of A subtypes. Nasopharyngeal swabs were the most commonly acceptable sample type; the sample volume ranging from 80 μl to 1·4 ml. Discussion  Most identified emerging influenza POCTs offered differentiation of influenza type and subtype. Tests claiming this capability include several incorporating reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assays; though, these also had the longest time to result. However, whilst some identified POCTs exhibit high sensitivity and specificity, most lack published clinical data for assessment, and the overall costs of these technologies remains largely unknown.

Background The Clavien–Dindo classification is perhaps the most widely used approach for reporting postoperative complications in clinical trials. This system classifies complication severity by the treatment provided. However, it is unclear whether the Clavien–Dindo system can be used internationally in studies across differing healthcare systems in high‐ (HICs) and low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). Methods This was a secondary analysis of the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), a prospective observational cohort study of elective surgery in adults. Data collection occurred over a 7‐day period. Severity of complications was graded using Clavien–Dindo and the simpler ISOS grading (mild, moderate or severe, based on guided investigator judgement). Severity grading was compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Data are presented as frequencies and ICC values (with 95 per cent c.i.). The analysis was stratified by income status of the country, comparing HICs with LMICs. Results A total of 44 814 patients were recruited from 474 hospitals in 27 countries (19 HICs and 8 LMICs). Some 7508 patients (16·8 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication, equivalent to 11 664 complications in total. Using the ISOS classification, 5504 of 11 664 complications (47·2 per cent) were graded as mild, 4244 (36·4 per cent) as moderate and 1916 (16·4 per cent) as severe. Using Clavien–Dindo, 6781 of 11 664 complications (58·1 per cent) were graded as I or II, 1740 (14·9 per cent) as III, 2408 (20·6 per cent) as IV and 735 (6·3 per cent) as V. Agreement between classification systems was poor overall (ICC 0·41, 95 per cent c.i. 0·20 to 0·55), and in LMICs (ICC 0·23, 0·05 to 0·38) and HICs (ICC 0·46, 0·25 to 0·59). Conclusion Caution is recommended when using a treatment approach to grade complications in global surgery studies, as this may introduce bias unintentionally.