Attenzione: i dati modificati non sono ancora stati salvati. Per confermare inserimenti o cancellazioni di voci è necessario confermare con il tasto SALVA/INSERISCI in fondo alla pagina
IRIS
Background: Prehabilitation can decrease postoperative complications and enhance recovery for people with gastrointestinal cancer. Preoperative screening may identify individuals at highest risk of poor postoperative outcomes, enabling targeted and tailored interventions. Despite this, optimal tools for screening patients before surgery remain unclear. This Delphi study sought to achieve international consensus on appropriate screening tools to identify patients at increased risk of postoperative complications before undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery. Methods: A three-round iterative Delphi survey was distributed to a global multidisciplinary network of prehabilitation experts. Respondents were asked to rate screening tools, identified through a scoping review, on a 5-point Likert scale based on the appropriateness of their use for adult patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery. The screening tools were categorized as evaluating either physical, nutritional, or psychological domains. A consensus criterion was applied in the second and third rounds, which required ≥ 70% of respondents to rate a given tool as ≥ 4 for it to proceed to future rounds. Results: Overall, 308 self-nominated prehabilitation experts rated the screening tools. Of 26 screening tools (including 9 physical, 7 nutritional, and 10 psychological), consensus was achieved for three physical, three nutritional, and four psychological tools. Conclusion: Based on Delphi consensus of global prehabilitation experts, 10 self-reported screening tools reached consensus. Given that tool selection was informed by Delphi consensus rather than empirical validation, prospective studies are necessary to assess whether these instruments accurately stratify surgical risk and identify candidates most likely to benefit from prehabilitation.
Expert Consensus on Self-Reported Physical, Nutritional, and Psychological Screening Tools for Prehabilitation in Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery: An International Delphi Study
Reeves J.;Karunaratne S.;Alexander K.;Petridis A.;Carey S.;Dhillon H. M.;Denehy L.;Solomon M.;Riedel B.;Koh C.;McBride K.;Gillis C.;White K.;Hirst N.;Shadid Z.;Rahman I.;Pillinger N.;Steffens D.;Hadhoud A.;Ghanam A.;Ghannam A.;Mohamed A.;Ahmed A.;Mohamedali A.;Osman A.;Esmail A. A.;Shaban A.;Mohammed A.;Hussain A.;Al-Mehdhar A.;Alyami A.;Drissi-El-bouzaidi A.;Alqathafi A.;Ahmayda A.;Abdelsalam A. E. T.;Mohamed A. M. I.;Musbah A.;Shoman A.;Wahaballah A.;Al-Touny A.;Hussien A.;Amer A.;Houmada A.;Badawy A.;Maier A. B.;Denys A.;Davies A.;Becerra-Bolanos A.;Jerath A.;Joad A. K.;Absalom A.;Al-Qaidani A. A.;Canda A. E.;Maske A.;Mathai A. S.;Hamid A.;Attallah A.;Saracoglu A.;Al-Tayar B. A.;Sinner B.;Rayani B. K.;Girgin B.;Sawaf B.;Brandstrup B.;Andersson B.;Moran B.;Roxburgh B.;Romano B.;Keen C.;Tiselius C.;Grimmett C.;Beilstein C.;Yeoh C.;Bertelsen C. A.;Baratti D.;Au D.;Clark D.;Dunne D.;Levett D.;Liotiri D.;Schizas D.;Engel D.;Krsul D.;Virgilio E.;Amrein E. A. M.;Kitsou E.;Mohammed E. A. G.;Anestiadou E.;Traer E.;Elkoury E.;Munoz E. A.;Nordenstrom E.;Kamer E.;Elshenawy E.;Harrison E.;Ausania F.;Mansoor F. F. A.;Elmobark F.;Arduini F.;Cengiz F.;Mulita F.;Mongelli F.;Pata F.;Frizelle F.;Berrevoet F.;Van Ramshorst G. H.;Pellino G.;Sheill G.;Nelson G.;Mohammed H. A.;Gurbuz H.;De Boer H. D.;Aslami H.;Elhamzaoui H.;Serhan H. A.;Bohsas H.;Driessens H.;Pereira H.;Raab H.;Cappellini I.;Randall I.;Boden I.;Lulic I.;Merlini I.;Shariffuddin I. I.;Chmelo J.;Durrand J.;Bothe J.;Park J.;Moloney J.;Loeliger J.;Hardman J.;Klaase J.;Garcia-Sanchez J. I.;Dubowitz J.;Hallet J.;Kawamura J.;Kirtania J.;Clifford K.;El-Boghdadly K.;Abdelwahab K.;Mohamed K. O.;Ng K. -S.;Saeed K. A. M. D.;Bostock K.;Brown K.;Raso K. -L.;Nassim K.;Hill K.;Loh K. W.;Edbrooke L.;Lorenzon L.;Matthews L.;Antonucci L. A.;Edgar L.;Spencer L.;Brennan L.;Sielewicz M.;Taube M.;Eissa M.;Chaaban M.;West M.;Ghemmeid M.;Balkhi M.;Athar M.;Pocard M.;Van De Velde M.;Sparavigna M.;Ruiz M. G.;Lydrup M. -L.;Nebreda M. G.;Ubre M.;Falconi M.;Hii M.;Kelly M.;Leon-Arellano M.;Emara M. M.;Al Gharyani M.;Alsori M.;Elbahnasawy M.;Abdrabo M. F.;Ghula M.;Said M.;Ahmed M. S. A.;Almotaared M. A. M. K.;Al-Shehari M.;Majbar M. A.;Izzaldin M.;Omar M.;Alkhallatee M. S.;Ahmed M.;Hilles M.;Algabri M.;Awad M.;Haider M.;Kanjo M.;Badr N. W.;Hanna N.;Krita N.;Kovac N.;Rizvanovic N.;Srinivasaraghavan N.;Kiziltoprak N.;Ioannidis O.;Abdelwahab O. A.;Osman O.;Lahnaoui O.;Roy P.;Klassen P.;Forget P.;Sylla P.;Sutton P.;Kabata P.;Mroczkowski P.;Nilsson P. J.;Bor P.;Ihnat P.;Noordzij P.;Paal P.;Pucher P. H.;Major P.;Wang Q.;Muharam R.;Alvarez R. G.;Shrayyef R.;Alweshah R.;Mohamed R. A. Z.;Farrell R.;Caruso R.;Ikreedeegh R.;Arnold R.;Falz R.;Miegel R.;Navarro-Perez R.;Dolan R.;Adem S.;Ahmed S.;Sannoufa S.;Auld S.;Elsheikh S. S.;Abdelmohsen S.;Braungart S.;Rajsic S.;Ismail S.;Atici S. D.;Filizoglu S. A.;Philp S.;Yaceczko S.;Manfredelli S.;Burden S.;Hogan S.;Mancin S.;Apostolaki S.;Gonzalez-Suarez S.;Salem T. A.;Triantafyllou T.;Sammour T.;Bright T.;Parkington T.;Gorey V.;Mousafeiris V.;Lohsiriwat V.;Zaydfudim V.;Frontera W. R.;Ibrahim W.;Aljbali W.;Van Klei W.;Yildirim Y.;Alsoud Y. A.;Belkhadir Z.
2026-01-01
Abstract
Background: Prehabilitation can decrease postoperative complications and enhance recovery for people with gastrointestinal cancer. Preoperative screening may identify individuals at highest risk of poor postoperative outcomes, enabling targeted and tailored interventions. Despite this, optimal tools for screening patients before surgery remain unclear. This Delphi study sought to achieve international consensus on appropriate screening tools to identify patients at increased risk of postoperative complications before undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery. Methods: A three-round iterative Delphi survey was distributed to a global multidisciplinary network of prehabilitation experts. Respondents were asked to rate screening tools, identified through a scoping review, on a 5-point Likert scale based on the appropriateness of their use for adult patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery. The screening tools were categorized as evaluating either physical, nutritional, or psychological domains. A consensus criterion was applied in the second and third rounds, which required ≥ 70% of respondents to rate a given tool as ≥ 4 for it to proceed to future rounds. Results: Overall, 308 self-nominated prehabilitation experts rated the screening tools. Of 26 screening tools (including 9 physical, 7 nutritional, and 10 psychological), consensus was achieved for three physical, three nutritional, and four psychological tools. Conclusion: Based on Delphi consensus of global prehabilitation experts, 10 self-reported screening tools reached consensus. Given that tool selection was informed by Delphi consensus rather than empirical validation, prospective studies are necessary to assess whether these instruments accurately stratify surgical risk and identify candidates most likely to benefit from prehabilitation.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11770/409302
Attenzione
Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo
Citazioni
ND
ND
ND
social impact
Conferma cancellazione
Sei sicuro che questo prodotto debba essere cancellato?
simulazione ASN
Il report seguente simula gli indicatori relativi alla propria produzione scientifica in relazione alle soglie ASN 2023-2025 del proprio SC/SSD. Si ricorda che il superamento dei valori soglia (almeno 2 su 3) è requisito necessario ma non sufficiente al conseguimento dell'abilitazione. La simulazione si basa sui dati IRIS e sugli indicatori bibliometrici alla data indicata e non tiene conto di eventuali periodi di congedo obbligatorio, che in sede di domanda ASN danno diritto a incrementi percentuali dei valori. La simulazione può differire dall'esito di un’eventuale domanda ASN sia per errori di catalogazione e/o dati mancanti in IRIS, sia per la variabilità dei dati bibliometrici nel tempo. Si consideri che Anvur calcola i valori degli indicatori all'ultima data utile per la presentazione delle domande.
La presente simulazione è stata realizzata sulla base delle specifiche raccolte sul tavolo ER del Focus Group IRIS coordinato dall’Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia e delle regole riportate nel DM 589/2018 e allegata Tabella A. Cineca, l’Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia e il Focus Group IRIS non si assumono alcuna responsabilità in merito all’uso che il diretto interessato o terzi faranno della simulazione. Si specifica inoltre che la simulazione contiene calcoli effettuati con dati e algoritmi di pubblico dominio e deve quindi essere considerata come un mero ausilio al calcolo svolgibile manualmente o con strumenti equivalenti.
