SynthesisWorld journal of surgery2016
A Systematic Review of Patient-reported Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials of Unplanned General Surgery.
Synthesis in World journal of surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Patient-reported outcomes in randomized controlled trials of spinal disorders: a methodological quality assessment and recommendations for future research.EFORT open reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Reporting of health-related quality of life in emergency laparotomy trials: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024Pooled it
- Quality and reporting of patient-reported outcomes in elderly patients with hip fracture: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2022Pooled it
- Knowledge translation concerns for the CONSORT-PRO extension reporting guidance: a review of reviews.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022Pooled it
- Methodological overview of systematic reviews to establish the evidence base for emergency general surgery.The British journal of surgery · 2017Pooled it
- Patient Experience of Emergency Laparotomy: A Mixed Methods Study (The PEEL-2 Study).World journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Adherence to CONSORT-PRO Extension Guidelines for Patient-Reported Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials Focused on Peripheral Nerve Blocks: A Meta-epidemiological Study.Pain and therapy · 2025Article
- Gaps and uncertainties in the management of acute pancreatitis: a scoping review and quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Emergency Laparotomy Follow-Up Study (ELFUS): prospective feasibility investigation into postoperative complications and quality of life using patient-reported outcome measures up to a year after emergency laparotomy.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2021Article
- Feasibility of collecting retrospective patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in emergency hospital admissions.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2018Article
- Standards of reporting: the use of CONSORT PRO and CERT in individuals living with osteoporosis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2018Review
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
Unplanned general surgery represents a major workload and requires comprehensive evaluation with appropriate outcomes. This study aimed to summarize current reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in unplanned general surgery. A systematic review identified RCTs reporting PROs in the commonest six areas of unplanned general surgery. Details of the PRO measures were examined using the CONSORT extension for PRO reporting in RCTs. Extracted information about each PRO domain included the reporting of baseline PROs, rationale for PRO selection and whether PRO findings were used in conjunction with clinical outcomes to inform treatment recommendations. The internal validity of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. 12,519 abstracts were screened and 20 RCTs containing data from 2037 patients included. Included studies used 14 separate PRO measures covering 35 different health domains. A visual analogue assessment of pain was most frequently reported (n = 13). Reporting of baseline PRO data was uncommon (11/35 PRO domains). The rationale for PRO data collection and a PRO-specific hypothesis were provided for 9 (25.7 %) and 5 (14.3 %) domains, respectively. Seventeen RCTs (85.0 %) used the PRO data alongside clinical outcomes to inform treatment recommendations. Of the 116 risk of bias assessments, 77 (66.0 %) were judged as high or unclear. There is a lack of well designed, and conducted RCTs in unplanned general surgery that include PROs. Future work to define relevant PROs and methods for optimal assessment are needed to inform health care decision-making.
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.