The Risk Assessment Tools for Intraoperative Hypothermia in Adults: A Scope Review.
Hao Wang, Ping Xu, Jianying Luo and 1 others
PMID 41834356WHAT IT FOUND
Adult intraoperative hypothermia risk tools mostly assess age, BMI, baseline temperature, fluids, surgery/anaesthesia time and operating room temperature.
Across 20 studies, most were single-centre and their usefulness for patient care is unclear.
Key findings
01The review selected 20 full-text articles and categorised the tools as 15 risk prediction models, 4 risk assessment tables and 1 risk assessment system.
02Patient factors were reported in 20 studies, surgical factors in 18, anaesthetic factors in 16 and environmental factors in 12; the most frequently reported items were age, BMI, baseline body temperature, intraoperative fluid volume, operation time, anaesthesia time and operating room temperature.
03Nine of 15 prediction models reported AUC values from 0.7 to 0.914, while six models were developed without AUC evaluation, and no widely accepted clinical risk assessment scale exists.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review protocol was not registered. Only English and Chinese peer-reviewed literature was searched, and grey literature and studies in other languages were excluded. No strict quality assessment of included studies was performed, so differences among studies were not accurately explained. Included studies came from different countries and clinical settings, with varying sample characteristics and sample sizes. Most tools were developed and evaluated in single-centre studies with small samples, and external verification often used small samples. Many included studies were retrospective, which could introduce recall bias, and qualitative item selection may be subjective. Reliability and validity were not clearly established for many tools; some evaluation tables and one index system did not report them.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest and reported nothing to report for funding.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the reported AUC range of 0.7 to 0.914 as proof that these tools are clinically established. Most tools came from single-centre small studies, six of 15 models lacked AUC evaluation, and no widely accepted clinical risk assessment scale exists.