Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23989747›Full record

Trial reportEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2013

An exploration of patients' expectation of and satisfaction with surgical outcome.

Alison H McGregor, Caroline J Doré, Tim P Morris

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: The Patient Point of View.Digestive diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Patients with complex proximal tibial fractures overestimate the prognosis of their injury.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022
    Article
  13. Expected Versus Experienced Health-Related Quality of Life Among Patients Recovering From Cancer Surgery: A Prospective Cohort Study.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2021
    Article
  14. The dynamics of satisfaction in surgical and non-surgical adult spinal deformity patients.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Physician-Centered Outcomes for Skin Cancer Treatment: A Single-Day Modified Delphi Process to Assess the Importance of Themes in Skin Cancer Management.Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.] · 2019
    Article
  20. 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.

Alison H McGregorSurgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, Charing Cross Hospital Campus, London, W6 8RP, UK, a.mcgregor@imperial.ac.uk.
Caroline J Doré
Tim P Morris

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U122886349Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/14
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe majority of studies of surgical outcome focus on measures of function and pain. Increasingly, however, the desire to include domains such as patients' satisfaction and expectations had led to the development of simple measures and their inclusion into clinical studies. The purpose of this study was to determine patients' pre-operative expectations of and post-operative satisfaction with the outcome of their spinal surgery.

methodsAs part of the FASTER randomised controlled trial, patients were asked pre-operatively to quantify their expected improvement in pain and health status at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months following surgery using 100 mm visual analogue scales (VAS), and to indicate their confidence in achieving this result and also the importance of this recovery to them. Patients were then asked to rate their satisfaction with the improvement achieved at each post-operative review using 100 mm VAS.

resultsAlthough differences between patients' expectation and achievement were minimal 6 weeks post-operatively, there was a clear discrepancy at 6 months and 1 year, with patient expectations far exceeding achievement. There were significant correlations between failure to achieve expectations and the importance patients attached to this recovery at each post-operative assessment, but not with their confidence in achieving this result. Satisfaction levels remained high despite expectations not being met, with discectomy patients being more satisfied than decompression patients.

conclusionsPatients' pre-operative expectations of surgical outcome exceed their long-term achievement. The more importance the patient attached to a good outcome, the larger is the discrepancy between expectation and achievement. Despite this, satisfaction levels remained high. The impact of unrealistic expectations on outcome remains unclear.

Indexed as

AdultDecompression, SurgicalDiskectomyFemaleHealth StatusHumansLondonMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPatient SatisfactionPersonal SatisfactionPostoperative PainPostoperative PeriodQuality of LifeRecovery of Function

Identifiers

PMID23989747
PMCPMC3843807

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.