ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2016
A report on an acute, in-hours, outpatient review clinic with ultrasonography facilities for the early evaluation of general surgical patients.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis.The British journal of surgery · 2020Review
- Ultrasonography in Gastroenterology: The Need for Training.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction In 2013 our hospital introduced an in-hours, consultant-led, outpatient acute surgical clinic (ASC) for emergency general surgical patients. In 2014 this clinic was equipped with a dedicated ultrasonography service. This prospective cohort study evaluated this service before and after the introduction of ultrasonography facilities. Methods Data were recorded prospectively for all patients attending the clinic during 2013 and 2014. The primary outcome was patient destination (whether there was follow-up/admission) after clinic attendance. Results The ASC reviewed patients with a wide age range and array of general surgical complaints. In 2013, 186 patients attended the ASC. After the introduction of the ultrasonography service in 2014, 304 patients attended. In 2014, there was a reduction in the proportion of patients admitted to hospital from the clinic (18.3% vs 8.9%, p=0.002). However, the proportion of patients discharged after ASC review remained comparable with 2013 (30.1% in 2013 vs 38.8% in 2014, p=0.051). The proportion of patients undergoing computed tomography (CT) scans also fell (14.0% vs 4.9%, p<0.001). Conclusions The ASC assessed a wide array of general surgical complaints. Only a small proportion required hospital admission. The introduction of an ultrasonography service was associated with a further reduction in admission rates and computed tomography.
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.