↓ Skip to main content

Significant discrepancies exist between clinician assessment and patient self-assessment of functional capacity by validated scoring tools during preoperative evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in Perioperative Medicine, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Significant discrepancies exist between clinician assessment and patient self-assessment of functional capacity by validated scoring tools during preoperative evaluation
Published in
Perioperative Medicine, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13741-016-0041-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Whittemore Stokes, Jonathan Porter Wanderer, Matthew David McEvoy

Abstract

Preoperative assessment of functional capacity is necessary to direct decisions regarding cardiac evaluation and may help identify patients at high risk for perioperative complications. Patient self-triage regarding functional capacity could be useful for discerning which patients benefit from a clinician evaluation at a Preoperative Evaluation Center prior to the day of surgery. We evaluated the feasibility of preoperative, patient self-triage regarding functional capacity. Patients were recruited immediately prior to their preoperative evaluation. Study participants completed electronic versions of the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement System (PROMIS)-Short Form 12a-Physical Function. DASI and PROMIS questionnaire responses were scored and evaluated for correlation with clinician assessments of functional capacity. Correlation was analyzed around the dichotomous outcome of <4 metabolic equivalents of task (METs) or ≥4 METs. Patients also evaluated the usability of the questionnaires. After IRB approval, 204 patients were enrolled and completed both DASI and PROMIS questionnaires. Clinicians assessed functional capacity at <4 METs for 109 patients (53.4 %) compared to 18 (8.8 %) patient self-assessments <4 METs as estimated by DASI. These results represent a significant discrepancy between assessments (Fisher's exact, two-tailed P value <0.0001). The standard T-score of PROMIS estimates of functional capacity correlated with DASI estimates (R (2) 0.76). The mean and standard deviation for PROMIS T-scores were 43.3 and 9.86, respectively (mean 50.0; SD 10.0 for the general population). Of the 203 patients who completed the entire study survey, 192 (94.6 %) stated that they did not require assistance from another person, and 187 (94 %) responded either "agree" or "strongly agree" to the DASI questionnaire being "easy to understand" and "easy to complete;" 186 (93 %) and 188 (94 %), respectively, responded similarly to the PROMIS questionnaire. While both electronic questionnaires were easy to understand and complete for most study participants, there was a significant discrepancy between clinician assessments and patient self-assessments of functional capacity. Further study is needed to determine if either patient self-triage by means of activity questionnaires or clinician evaluation is valid and reliable in the preoperative setting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 15%
Researcher 7 13%
Other 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 14 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 42%
Engineering 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 14 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 September 2016.
All research outputs
#14,268,471
of 22,880,691 outputs
Outputs from Perioperative Medicine
#137
of 243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,276
of 354,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perioperative Medicine
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,691 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 243 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 354,681 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.