Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23633186›Full record

SynthesisClinical orthopaedics and related research2013

Measuring expectations in orthopaedic surgery: a systematic review.

Michael G Zywiel, Anisah Mahomed, Rajiv Gandhi, Anthony V Perruccio, Nizar N Mahomed

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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.

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

76 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 125 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Patients' Expectations Predict Surgery Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2016
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. The impact of early postoperative pain interference on 2-year outcomes after hip arthroscopy.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michael G ZywielDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 2S8, Canada, mike@zywiel.net.
Anisah Mahomed
Rajiv Gandhi
Anthony V Perruccio
Nizar N Mahomed
Toronto Western Hospital · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvances in the surgical treatment of musculoskeletal conditions have resulted in an interest in better defining and understanding patients' expectations of these procedures, but the best ways to do this remain a topic of considerable debate. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What validated instruments for the assessment of patient expectations of orthopaedic surgery have been used in published studies to date? (2) How were these expectation measures developed and validated? (3) What unvalidated instruments for the assessment of patient expectations have been used in published studies to date?

methodsA systematic literature search was performed using the OVID Medline and EMBASE databases, in duplicate, to identify all studies that assessed patient expectations in orthopaedic surgery. Sixty-six studies were ultimately included in the present review.

resultsSeven validated expectation instruments were identified, all of which use patient-reported questionnaires. Five were specific to a particular procedure or affected anatomic location, whereas two were broadly applicable. Details of reliability and validity testing were available for all but one of these instruments. Forty additional unvalidated expectation assessment tools were identified. Thirteen were based on existing clinical outcome tools, and the others were study-specific, custom-developed tools. Only one of the unvalidated tools was used in more than one study.

conclusionsSeveral validated expectation instruments have been developed for use by patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery. However, many tools have been reported without evidence of testing and validation. The wide range of untested instruments used in single studies substantially limits the interpretation and comparison of data concerning patient expectations.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeOrthopedic ProceduresOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePatient SatisfactionQuality Indicators, Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesHealth Services ResearchHumansPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID23633186
PMCPMC3792280
OpenAlexW1969328092

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.