ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2016
Pectus patient information website has improved access to care and patient reported outcomes.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Changes in chest wall motion with removal of Nuss bar in repaired pectus excavatum - a cohort study.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2019Article
- Outcomes in adult pectus excavatum patients undergoing Nuss repair.Patient related outcome measures · 2018Review
- Development and assessment of reliable patient-based hypodontia website.Patient preference and adherence · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPectus is the most common congenital disorder. Awareness amongst primary care physicians and the general public is poor. NHS commissioning bodies plan to withdraw funding for this surgery because they deem a lack of sufficient evidence of benefit. The purpose of this study is to assess the effects of introducing a patient information website on referral and activity patterns and on patients reported outcomes.
methodsWe produced an innovative information website, www.pectus.co.uk , accessible to the general public, providing information about pectus deformities; management options and advice about surgery. Referral patterns and number of cases where studied before and after the introduction of the website in 2010. Patients' satisfaction post-op was assessed using the Brompton's single step questionnaire (SSQ).
resultsThe website had considerable traffic with 2179 hits in 2012, 4983 in 2013 and 7416 in 2014. This has led to 1421 contacts and 372 email enquiries. These emails have resulted in an increased number of patients who have been assessed and go on to have surgery. We asked 59 pectus excavatum patients who were operated from 2008 to 2014 to complete the SSQ. We received 32 replies. Eighty-four percent (16/19) of patients who visited the website and then underwent surgery, found the website useful. All patients scored satisfactorily in SSQ. Even though those who visited the website tended to be more satisfied with the surgical outcomes this did not reach statistical significance. This group of patients said that would have the operation again given the option compared to 76.9 % of the group who did not visit the website before surgery (p=0.031). Despite the fact that patients who visited the website experienced more post-operative complications were equally or more satisfied with post-operative outcomes. The overall SSQ obtainable score was not different for the two subgroups, being more widespread in the group that did not visit the website.
conclusionsThe introduction of a pectus patient information website has significantly improved access to specialised services. Patients are overall highly satisfied with the surgical outcomes.
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.