Trial reportJournal of epidemiology and community health1999
Is follow up by specialists routinely needed after elective surgery? A controlled trial.
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.
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.
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.
The Effect of Mobile App Home Monitoring on the Number of In-Person Visits Following Ambulatory Surgery: A Randomized Control Trial
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- International guidelines for groin hernia management.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2018Guideline
- Trial
- Early Discharge and Patient-Initiated Follow-Up in Hand Surgery: A New Norm Following Simple Hand Surgery?Cureus · 2024Article
- Patient satisfaction with follow-up after spinal fusion.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2023Article
- The effect of mobile app home monitoring on number of in-person visits following ambulatory surgery: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.JMIR research protocols · 2015Article
- Replacing ambulatory surgical follow-up visits with mobile app home monitoring: modeling cost-effective scenarios.Journal of medical Internet research · 2014Article
- Is there a need for postoperative follow-up after routine urogynaecological procedures? Patients will self-present if they have problems.International urogynecology journal · 2014Observational
- Ambulatory care provided by office-based specialists in the United States.Annals of family medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.