Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25367096›Full record

Observational studyPediatric surgery international2015

Are paediatric operations evidence based? A prospective analysis of general surgery practice in a teaching paediatric hospital.

Elke Zani-Ruttenstock, Augusto Zani, Emma Bullman, Eveline Lapidus-Krol, Agostino Pierro

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Pediatric surgery international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. The evidence mismatch in pediatric surgical practice.Pediatric surgery international · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Re. "Are paediatric operations evidence based?".Pediatric surgery international · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elke Zani-RuttenstockDivision of General and Thoracic Surgery, The Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X8, Canada.
Augusto Zani
Emma Bullman
Eveline Lapidus-Krol
Agostino Pierro
Hospital for Sick Children · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimPaediatric surgical practice should be based upon solid scientific evidence. A study in 1998 (Baraldini et al., Pediatr Surg Int) indicated that only a quarter of paediatric operations were supported by the then gold standard of evidence based medicine (EBM) which was defined by randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of the current study was to re-evaluate paediatric surgical practice 16 years after the previous study in a larger cohort of patients.

methodsA prospective observational study was performed in a tertiary level teaching hospital for children. The study was approved by the local research ethics board. All diagnostic and therapeutic procedures requiring a general anaesthetic carried out over a 4-week period (24 Feb 2014-22 Mar 2014) under the general surgery service or involving a general paediatric surgeon were included in the study. Pubmed and EMBASE were used to search in the literature for the highest level of evidence supporting the recorded procedures. Evidence was classified according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (OCEBM) 2009 system as well as according to the classification used by Baraldini et al. Results was compared using Χ (2) test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

resultsDuring the study period, 126 operations (36 different types) were performed on 118 patients. According to the OCEBM classification, 62 procedures (49 %) were supported by systematic reviews of multiple homogeneous RCTs (level 1a), 13 (10 %) by individual RCTs (level 1b), 5 (4 %) by systematic reviews of cohort studies (level 2a), 11 (9 %) by individual cohort studies, 1 (1 %) by systematic review of case-control studies (level 3a), 14 (11 %) by case-control studies (level 3b), 9 (7 %) by case series (type 4) and 11 procedures (9 %) were based on expert opinion or deemed self-evident interventions (type 5). High level of evidence (OCEBM level 1a or 1b or level I according to Baraldini et al. PSI 1998) supported 75 (60 %) operations in the current study compared to 18 (26 %) in the study of 1998 (P < 0.0001).

conclusionThe present study shows that nowadays a remarkable number of paediatric surgical procedures are supported by high level of evidence. Despite this improvement in evidence-based paediatric surgical practice, more than a third of the procedures still lack sufficient evidence-based literature support. More RCTs are warranted to support and direct paediatric surgery practice according to the principals of EBM.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineGeneral SurgeryHospitals, PediatricHospitals, TeachingHumansPediatricsProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID25367096
OpenAlexW2083528284

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.