ArticlePlastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.)2016
Shared medical appointments as a new model for carpal tunnel surgery consultation: A randomized clinical trial.
Article in Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.), 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Exploring Decisional Conflict Experienced by Individuals Considering Metoidioplasty and Phalloplasty Gender-affirming Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Multiple Sclerosis Wellness Shared Medical Appointment Model: A Pilot Study.International journal of MS careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn chronic disease management, shared medical appointments have been shown to improve clinic access, productivity and patient education. However, adoption of this model in surgical consultation is limited, and its effect on surgical patients' satisfaction, comfort and surgical risk recall is unknown.
objectiveTo determine whether shared medical appointments could be applied to carpal tunnel surgery consultation while being equally effective as individual consultation for risk recall, patient comfort and satisfaction.
methodsA prospective randomized trial involving 80 patients referred for carpal tunnel release consultation, in which patients were assigned to an educational discussion individually or as part of a shared appointment, was conducted. In a blinded fashion, patients were contacted preoperatively to assess their risk recall and postoperatively to rate their overall satisfaction, comfort and satisfaction with the surgeon.
resultsPatient demographics were equal. Surgical risk recall was equivalent between shared and individual consults (2.06±1.15 versus 1.64±1.04; P=0.11). More participants in the shared appointments condition remembered the specific risks of infection (61.1% versus 33.3%; P=0.020) and bleeding (30.6% versus 10.3%; P=0.028). There was no difference in overall satisfaction (8.70 versus 8.88; P=0.75), satisfaction with the surgeon (8.05 versus 8.13; P=0.92) or overall comfort (8.80 versus 8.31; P=0.46). DISCUSSION: Shared medical appointments for carpal tunnel surgery consultation were equivalent to individual consultation in terms of surgical risk recall, patient satisfaction and comfort.
conclusionThese results support the use of shared appointments for large-volume, low-variation surgery.
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.