Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21559859›Full record

Trial reportLangenbeck's archives of surgery2011

Ranking of patient and surgeons' perspectives for endpoints in randomized controlled trials--lessons learned from the POVATI trial [ISRCTN 60734227].

Lars Fischer, Andreas Deckert, Markus K Diener, Johannes B Zimmermann, Markus W Büchler, Christoph M Seiler

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015
    Review
  3. Article
  4. [Contribution of the Study Center of the German Surgical Society to evidence based surgery].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2011
    Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Lars FischerDepartment of Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany. lars.fischer@med.uni-heidelberg.de
Andreas Deckert
Markus K Diener
Johannes B Zimmermann
Markus W Büchler
Christoph M Seiler

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSurgical trials focus mainly on mortality and morbidity rates, which may be not the most important endpoints from the patient's perspective. Evaluation of expectations and needs of patients enrolled in clinical trials can be analyzed using a procedure called ranking. Within the Postsurgical Pain Outcome of Vertical and Transverse Abdominal Incision randomized trial (POVATI), the perspectives of participating patients and surgeons were assessed as well as the influence of the surgical intervention on patients' needs. PATIENTS AND

methodsAll included patients of the POVATI trial were asked preoperatively and postoperatively to rank predetermined outcome variables concerning the upcoming surgical procedure (e.g., pain, complication, cosmetic result) hierarchically according to their importance. Preoperatively, the surgeons were asked to do the same.

resultsOne hundred eighty two out of 200 randomized patients (71 females, 111 males; mean age 59 years) returned the ranking questionnaire preoperatively and 152 patients (67 females, 85 males; mean age 60 years) on the day of discharge. There were no differences between the two groups with respect to the distribution of ranking variables (p > 0.05). Thirty-five surgeons (7 residents, 6 fellows, and 22 consultants) completed the same ranking questionnaire. The order of the four most important ranking variables for both patients and surgeons were death, avoiding of postoperative complications, avoiding of intraoperative complications, and pain. Surgeons ranked the variable "cosmetic result" significantly as more important compared to patients (p = 0.034, Fisher's exact test).

conclusionPatients and surgeons did not differ in ranking predetermined outcomes in the POVATI trial. Only the variable "cosmetic result" is significantly more important from the surgeon's than from the patient's perspective. Ranking of outcomes might be a beneficial tool and can be a proper addition to RCTs.

Indexed as

Abdominal WallAdultAgedAge FactorsDigestive System DiseasesDigestive System Surgical ProceduresFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIntraoperative ComplicationsLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CarePain MeasurementPatient Satisfaction

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.