ArticleBMJ open2015
Assessing the quality of written information provision for surgical procedures: a case study in oesophagectomy.
Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Online patient literature related to oesophageal surgery: the need for greater readability, accreditation and higher quality.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2023Review
- Creation and provision of a question and answer resource for esophageal cancer based on medical professionals' reports of patients' and families' views and preferences.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2021Article
- Potential curability and perception of received information in esophageal cancer patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018Article
- Core information sets for informed consent to surgical interventions: baseline information of importance to patients and clinicians.BMC medical ethics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the content and quality of written information provided by surgical centres for patients undergoing oesophagectomy for cancer.
designCross-sectional study of the content of National Health Service (NHS) patient information leaflets (PILs) about oesophageal cancer surgery, using a modified framework approach. DATA SOURCES: Written information leaflets from 41 of 43 cancer centres undertaking surgery for oesophageal cancer in England and Wales (response rate 95.3%). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All English language versions of PILs about oesophagectomy.
results32 different PILs were identified, of which 2 were generic tools (Macmillan 'understanding cancer of the gullet' and EIDO 'oesophagectomy'). Although most PILs focused on describing in-hospital adverse events, information varied widely and was often misleading. Just 1 leaflet described survival benefits of surgery and 2 mentioned the possibility of disease recurrence.
conclusionsWritten information provided for patients by NHS cancer centres undertaking oesophagectomy is inconsistent and incomplete. It is recommended that surgeons work together with patients to agree on standards of information provision of relevance to all stakeholders' needs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.