Evaluación de la sensibilidad de un dispositivo de radiofrecuencia para la detección de gasas quirúrgicas retenidas

1. Joint Commission.  Sentinel event data: general information: 1995–third quarter 2011 . http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/General_Information_1995-3Q2011.pdf. Accessed January 25, 2012
2. Cima RR, Kollengode A, Garnatz J, Storsveen A, Weisbrod C, Deschamps C. Incidence and characteristics of potential and actual retained foreign object events in surgical patients.  J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207(1):80-87
3. Gawande AA, Studdert DM, Orav EJ, Brennan TA, Zinner MJ. Risk factors for retained instruments and sponges after surgery.  N Engl J Med. 2003;348(3):229-235
4. Lincourt AE, Harrell A, Cristiano J, Sechrist C, Kercher K, Heniford BT. Retained foreign bodies after surgery.  J Surg Res. 2007;138(2):170-174
5. Kaiser CW, Friedman S, Spurling KP, Slowick T, Kaiser HA. The retained surgical sponge.  Ann Surg. 1996;224(1):79-84
6. National Quality Forum.  National Quality Forum updates endorsement of serious reportable events in healthcare [press release]. October 16, 2006. http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/WSJ_PRSeriousReportableEvents10-15-06.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2012
7. Joint Commission.  Sentinel event policy and procedures. http://www.jointcommission.org/Sentinel_Event_Policy_and_Procedures/. Accessed January 25, 2012
8. National Academy for State Health Policy.  Authorizing statutes or regulations. http://www.nashp.org/pst-tools/861/Authorizing-statutes-or-regulations. Accessed January 27, 2012
9. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.  Hospital-acquired conditions (present on admission indicator). January 30, 2008. http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/HospitalAcqCond/index.html?redirect=/HospitalAcqCond/. Accessed July 20, 2012
10. Association of Perioperative Registered Nurses. edRecommended practices for prevention of retained surgical items. In: Perioperative Standards and Recommended Practices for Inpatient and Ambulatory Settings. 2011 ed. Denver, CO: AORN; 2011:263-282
11. Steelman VM, Cullen JJ. Designing a safer process to prevent retained surgical sponges: a healthcare failure mode and effect analysis.  AORN J. 2011;94(2):132-141
12. Egorova NN, Moskowitz A, Gelijns A,  et al.  Managing the prevention of retained surgical instruments: what is the value of counting?  Ann Surg. 2008;247(1):13-18
13. Steelman VM. Sensitivity of detection of radiofrequency surgical sponges: a prospective, cross-over study.  Am J Surg. 2011;201(2):233-237
14. Li J, Fine J. On sample size for sensitivity and specificity in prospective diagnostic accuracy studies.  Stat Med. 2004;23(16):2537-2550
15. Julious SA. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods by Robert G. Newcombe, Statistics in Medicine 1998; 17:857-872.  Stat Med. 2005;24(21):3383-3384
16. Romano PS, Geppert JJ, Davies S, Miller MR, Elixhauser A, McDonald KM. A national profile of patient safety in U.S. hospitals.  Health Aff (Millwood). 2003;22(2):154-166
17. Greenberg CC, Regenbogen SE, Lipsitz SR, Diaz-Flores R, Gawande AA. The frequency and significance of discrepancies in the surgical count.  Ann Surg. 2008;248(2):337-341
18. Dossett LA, Dittus RS, Speroff T, May AK, Cotton BA. Cost-effectiveness of routine radiographs after emergent open cavity operations.  Surgery. 2008;144(2):317-321
19. Macario A, Morris D, Morris S. Initial clinical evaluation of a handheld device for detecting retained surgical gauze sponges using radiofrequency identification technology.  Arch Surg. 2006;141(7):659-662