Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25112383›Full record

ReviewHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2015

A detailed analysis of outcome reporting from randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses of inguinal hernia repair.

A Bhangu, P Singh, T Pinkney, J M Blazeby

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Reversal of stoma with biosynthetic mesh fascial reinforcement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. International guidelines for groin hernia management.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2018
    Guideline
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Perioperative outcome in groin hernia repair: what are the most important influencing factors?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after total extraperitoneal hernia repair (TEP).Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2017
    Article
  20. Repair of recurrent hernia is often performed at a different clinic.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2016
    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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

A BhanguWest Midlands Research Collaborative, Academic Department of Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Room 29, 4th Floor, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TH, UK, aneelbhangu@doctors.org.uk.
P Singh
T Pinkney
J M Blazeby
Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham · GBQueen Elizabeth Hospital · GBUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0800800
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEvidence is needed to justify whether investment in an internationally agreed core outcome set for inguinal hernia surgery is needed. This study aimed to assess outcome reporting from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses in inguinal hernia surgery.

methodsRCTs and meta-analyses comparing surgical technique or mesh type for primary inguinal hernia repair were systematically identified. Verbatim details, type, frequency and definition of clinician-observed and -assessed outcomes were summarised. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were analysed for instrument validity and frequency of domain reporting.

results40 RCTs (10,810 patients) and 7 meta-analyses (17,280 patients) were identified. No single PROM was reported by all studies. There were 58 different clinician-observed outcomes, with recurrence (n = 47, 100%), wound infection (n = 33, 70.2%), haematoma (n = 31, 77.5%) and seroma formation (n = 22, 46.8%) being most frequently reported. All studies measured patients' views, although only 12 (30.0%) used validated instruments. The SF36 was the most commonly used multi-dimensional valid PROM (n = 7), and a visual analogue scale assessing pain (n = 32) was the most frequently used unidimensional scale. Non-validated questionnaires assessed 25 other aspects of patients' health. Two meta-analyses defined recurrence and three chronic pain although neither ensured that included RCTs adhered to the definitions.

conclusionsOutcome reporting from RCTs concerning inguinal hernia repair is inconsistent and poorly defined, limiting meta-analyses, which themselves do not control for the differing definitions of assessed outcomes. This study justifies investment in a standardised core outcome set for inguinal hernia surgery, to improve outcome reporting and evidence synthesis.

Indexed as

HerniorrhaphyOutcome Assessment, Health CareHernia, InguinalHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicMiddle AgedPatient Outcome AssessmentRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID25112383
OpenAlexW2047986816

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.