Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10396473›Full record

Trial reportJournal of epidemiology and community health1999

Is follow up by specialists routinely needed after elective surgery? A controlled trial.

J Bailey, M Roland, C Roberts

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readClinical TrialControlled Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02318953 (The Effect of Mobile App Home Monitoring on the Number of In-Person Visits Following Ambulatory Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02318953 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2015, after this paper: background citation

The Effect of Mobile App Home Monitoring on the Number of In-Person Visits Following Ambulatory Surgery: A Randomized Control Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorWomen's College HospitalRan2015 to 2015Enrolled70ConditionsUse of Mobile App Home Monitoring After Ambulatory SurgeryArmsMobile app follow-up care, Conventional, in-person follow-up care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. International guidelines for groin hernia management.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2018
    Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Patient satisfaction with follow-up after spinal fusion.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

J BaileyNational Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester.
M Roland
C Roberts
University of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

objectiveTo assess the benefit of planned specialist follow up appointments after elective inpatient surgery.

designThis was a controlled trial, using repeated alternate allocation of time periods to the two study groups. Group 1: Planned outpatient follow up 6-12 weeks after surgery. Group 2: No planned follow up: additional written information for patients and general practitioners.

settingA district general hospital in the north west of England.

participants264 patients listed for one of: transurethral resection of the prostate, varicose vein surgery, cholecystectomy (open or laparoscopic), inguinal herniorraphy (open or laparoscopic).

main outcome measuresHealth status, complications, return to normal activity, patient satisfaction, use and costs of primary and secondary care in the 12 weeks after surgery. MAIN

resultsData were available for 212 (80%) of eligible patients. Thirty eight per cent of patients in the "no planned follow up" group were in fact seen in outpatients after their discharge. Intention to treat analysis showed that there were no significant differences between the groups for health status, complications, or time to return to normal activity. Patients in the "no planned follow up" group had significantly fewer hospital visits and costs (mean difference in visits 0.51, 95% confidence intervals 0.39 to 0.69; mean difference in hospital costs 12.75 Pounds, 9.75 Pounds to 15.50 Pounds). There were fewer primary care staff contacts and costs in the "no planned follow up" group, although this difference was not significant (mean difference = 0.61 visits, -0.13 to 1.33 visits; primary care costs difference 8.37 Pounds, -1.31 Pounds to 18.73 Pounds). Patients in the "no planned follow up group" had significantly reduced patient travel costs (mean difference 4.84 Pounds, 3.44 Pounds to 6.22 Pounds). Eighty nine (42%) patients would prefer to be followed up by both their hospital doctor and GP; 53 (25%) patients would prefer to be followed up by the hospital doctor only. There were no significant differences between the two groups in their preferences for follow up. The majority of GPs agreed with the statement that a policy of no follow up at hospital outpatients for each of the six surgical procedures would increase their workload.

conclusionsPlanned outpatient appointments after uncomplicated surgery seem to be neither necessary nor cost effective. A policy of "no planned follow up" results in no increase in primary care costs, and savings in hospital and patient costs. However, many patients expected and wanted to be seen again by their surgeon and GPs were concerned that a "no follow up" policy would result in an increase in workload.

Indexed as

Elective Surgical ProceduresAdolescentAdultAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelEnglandFamily PracticeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient DischargePatient SatisfactionPostoperative CareSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID10396473
PMCPMC1756834
OpenAlexW2107444241

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.