Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27383239›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2016

The Effect of Perioperative E-Health Interventions on the Postoperative Course: A Systematic Review of Randomised and Non-Randomised Controlled Trials.

Eva van der Meij, Johannes R Anema, René H J Otten, Judith A F Huirne, Frederieke G Schaafsma

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 102 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Eva van der MeijDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Johannes R AnemaEMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
René H J OttenMedical Library, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Judith A F HuirneDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Frederieke G SchaafsmaEMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NLEMGO Institute for Health and Care Research · NLVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundE-health interventions have become increasingly popular, including in perioperative care. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of perioperative e-health interventions on the postoperative course.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review and searched for relevant articles in the PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL and COCHRANE databases. Controlled trials written in English, with participants of 18 years and older who underwent any type of surgery and which evaluated any type of e-health intervention by reporting patient-related outcome measures focusing on the period after surgery, were included. Data of all included studies were extracted and study quality was assessed by using the Downs and Black scoring system.

findingsA total of 33 articles were included, reporting on 27 unique studies. Most studies were judged as having a medium risk of bias (n = 13), 11 as a low risk of bias, and three as high risk of bias studies. Most studies included patients undergoing cardiac (n = 9) or orthopedic surgery (n = 7). All studies focused on replacing (n = 11) or complementing (n = 15) perioperative usual care with some form of care via ICT; one study evaluated both type of interventions. Interventions consisted of an educational or supportive website, telemonitoring, telerehabilitation or teleconsultation. All studies measured patient-related outcomes focusing on the physical, the mental or the general component of recovery. 11 studies (40.7%) reported outcome measures related to the effectiveness of the intervention in terms of health care usage and costs. 25 studies (92.6%) reported at least an equal (n = 8) or positive (n = 17) effect of the e-health intervention compared to usual care. In two studies (7.4%) a positive effect on any outcome was found in favour of the control group.

conclusionBased on this systematic review we conclude that in the majority of the studies e-health leads to similar or improved clinical patient-related outcomes compared to only face to face perioperative care for patients who have undergone various forms of surgery. However, due to the low or moderate quality of many studies, the results should be interpreted with caution.

Indexed as

Health Information ExchangeHumansNon-Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient Education as TopicPerioperative CarePostoperative PeriodQuality of Health CareQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID27383239
PMCPMC4934874
OpenAlexW2471214594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.