Severity Grading Systems for Intraoperative Adverse Events. A Systematic Review of the Literature and Citation Analysis

Abstract

Introduction:The accurate assessment and grading of adverse events (AE) is essential to ensure comparisons between surgical procedures and outcomes. The current lack of a standardized severity grading system may limit our understanding of the true morbidity attributed to AEs in surgery. The aim of this study is to review the prevalence in which intraoperative adverse event (iAE) severity grading systems are used in the literature, evaluate the strengths and limitations of these systems, and appraise their applicability in clinical studies. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were queried to yield all clinical studies reporting the proposal and/or the validation of iAE severity grading systems. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched separately to identify the articles citing the systems to grade iAEs identified in the first search. Results: Our search yielded 2957 studies, with 7 studies considered for the qualitative synthesis. Five studies considered only surgical-/interventional iAEs, while 2 considered both surgical/interventional and anesthesiologic iAEs. Two included studies validated the iAE severity grading system prospectively. A total of 357 citations were retrieved, with an overall self/nonself-citation ratio of 0.17 (53/304). The majority of citing articles were clinical studies (44.1%). The average number of citations per year was 6.7 citations for each classification/severity system, with only 2.05 citations/year for clinical studies. Of the 158 clinical studies citing the severity grading systems, only 90 (56.9%) used them to grade the iAEs. The appraisal of applicability (mean%/median%) was below the 70% threshold in 3 domains: stakeholder involvement (46/47), clarity of presentation (65/67), and applicability (57/56). Conclusion: Seven severity grading systems for iAEs have been published in the last decade. Despite the importance of collecting and grading the iAEs, these systems are poorly adopted, with only a few studies per year using them. A uniform globally implemented severity grading system is needed to produce comparable data across studies and develop strategies to decrease iAEs, further improving patient safety.

Complications and adverse events in lymphadenectomy of the inguinal area: worldwide expert consensus

“…A previous systematic review demonstrated that classification systems are not properly utilized in the literature 1 . Despite the existence of several published guidelines to standardize complication reporting, only 25% of studies report at least half of the minimum requirements for complication reporting 1 , 17 , 27 , 38 , highlighting a need for improvement.…”

Study protocol for the Intraoperative Complications Assessment and Reporting with Universal Standards (ICARUS) global cross-specialty surveys and consensus

“…Aims . Although there are various intraoperative grading and classification systems [ 8 ], informally referred to as: EAUiaiC, iAE severity classification scheme, Modified Satava, EAES Grading system, and ClassIntra® (previously known as CLASSIC), the documentation of these iAEs is still extremely rare. Additionally, while postoperative adverse events are commonly reported, only a small portion of surgical literature addresses intraoperative complications as noteworthy outcomes [ 9 ].…”

“…Over the past decade, different grading systems have been introduced to capture iAEs [ 8 , 9 ] However, their adoption has been limited, and the lack of consensus across specialties necessitates external assessments [ 8 ]. Additionally, the absence of a clear, standardized definition of iAEs and their effects on postoperative courses has led to inconsistency in reporting.…”

Top 100 most-cited articles on tau protein: a bibliometric analysis and evidence mapping

“…Bibliometric analysis has become an indispensable tool in medical research due to its ability to provide a quantitative evaluation of scientific publications ( Jain et al, 2023 ; Kokol, 2023 ; Sayegh et al, 2023 ). This method involves the use of mathematical and statistical techniques to analyze various aspects of scholarly literature.…”