Abstract：
BACKGROUND: The scoping review was performed to identify methods of comorbidity assessment and to evaluate their significance in predicting the results of treatment of older patients undergoing elective abdominal surgeries for cancer.
METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and European Trials Register were searched for eligible studies investigating the impact of comorbidity on various postoperative outcomes of patients aged ≥65. Findings were narratively reported.
RESULTS: The review identified 40 studies with a total population of 59,612 patients, using eight different methods of comorbidity assessment. The most used was Charlson Comorbidity Index (60 % of studies) and presence of specific comorbid conditions (38 %). No study provided rationale for the choice of specific comorbidity measure. Most of the included studies reported short-term results (75 %), such as postoperative complications (43 %) and mortality (18 %) as main clinical endpoint. The results were inconsistent across the studies.
CONCLUSIONS: There is still no consensus regarding the choice of comorbidity measures and their role in postoperative outcome prediction. Further efforts are needed to develop new, well-designed, more effective comorbidity assessments tools.
METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and European Trials Register were searched for eligible studies investigating the impact of comorbidity on various postoperative outcomes of patients aged ≥65. Findings were narratively reported.
RESULTS: The review identified 40 studies with a total population of 59,612 patients, using eight different methods of comorbidity assessment. The most used was Charlson Comorbidity Index (60 % of studies) and presence of specific comorbid conditions (38 %). No study provided rationale for the choice of specific comorbidity measure. Most of the included studies reported short-term results (75 %), such as postoperative complications (43 %) and mortality (18 %) as main clinical endpoint. The results were inconsistent across the studies.
CONCLUSIONS: There is still no consensus regarding the choice of comorbidity measures and their role in postoperative outcome prediction. Further efforts are needed to develop new, well-designed, more effective comorbidity assessments tools.
摘要：
背景：进行范围审查是为了确定合并症评估的方法，并评估其在预测接受选择性腹部手术的老年患者癌症治疗结果中的意义。
方法：OvidMEDLINE，Embase,中部,WebofScience,在ClinicalTrials.gov和EuropeanTrialsRegister中搜索了符合条件的研究，以调查合并症对65岁以上患者的各种术后结局的影响。对调查结果进行了叙述性报道。
结果：该综述确定了40项研究，共有59,612名患者，使用八种不同的共病评估方法。使用最多的是Charlson合并症指数（60％的研究）和特定合并症的存在（38％）。没有研究提供选择特定合并症措施的理由。大多数纳入的研究报告了短期结果(75%)，如术后并发症（43％）和死亡率（18％）作为主要临床终点。研究结果不一致。
结论：关于合并症措施的选择及其在术后预后预测中的作用仍未达成共识。还需要进一步努力开发新的,精心设计,更有效的合并症评估工具。
方法：OvidMEDLINE，Embase,中部,WebofScience,在ClinicalTrials.gov和EuropeanTrialsRegister中搜索了符合条件的研究，以调查合并症对65岁以上患者的各种术后结局的影响。对调查结果进行了叙述性报道。
结果：该综述确定了40项研究，共有59,612名患者，使用八种不同的共病评估方法。使用最多的是Charlson合并症指数（60％的研究）和特定合并症的存在（38％）。没有研究提供选择特定合并症措施的理由。大多数纳入的研究报告了短期结果(75%)，如术后并发症（43％）和死亡率（18％）作为主要临床终点。研究结果不一致。
结论：关于合并症措施的选择及其在术后预后预测中的作用仍未达成共识。还需要进一步努力开发新的,精心设计,更有效的合并症评估工具。
