Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and content validation of the Global Trigger Tool surgical module.

The study did not test whether the tool is sensitive or specific for adverse events, so it does not show how many true events it catches or misses. Content validation used six experts and a single assessment round, so the result may not generalise to a wider panel. The pre-test used records from a large teaching hospital in southern Brazil, so other hospitals may have different documentation or case mix. Patients were not approached directly, so the findings depend on what was written in the medical record. Only 31 confirmed adverse events were found, so the pre-test does not show how the tool performs across many event types. The paper reports tool translation and usability, not evidence that using the tool improves patient outcomes.

Funding was provided by Technical Cooperation Agreement Nº 30/2016 - CAPES/COFEN. No other conflicts of interest are reported in the supplied text.

Do not conclude that the tool prevents complications or makes surgery safer. The study checked whether the translated triggers were understandable and whether they flagged confirmed adverse events in records, not patient outcomes.