Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29090090›Full record

ArticlePerioperative medicine (London, England)2017

Surgeons' views on preoperative medical evaluation: a qualitative study.

Kevin R Riggs, Zackary D Berger, Martin A Makary, Eric B Bass, Geetanjali Chander

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perioperative medicine (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Surgeons' Views on Shared Decision-Making.Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2020
    Article
  6. Review
  7. 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.

Kevin R RiggsDivision of Preventive Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL USA.
Zackary D BergerDivision of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1830 E. Monument Street, Room 8060, Baltimore, MD 21287 USA.
Martin A MakaryDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD USA.
Eric B BassDivision of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1830 E. Monument Street, Room 8060, Baltimore, MD 21287 USA.
Geetanjali ChanderDivision of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1830 E. Monument Street, Room 8060, Baltimore, MD 21287 USA.

Funding

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH IN HEART &VASCULAR DISEASET32HL007180 · NHLBI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI MARUTHUR, NISA M · 1985 to 2020
$11.4M
NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007180
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is substantial variation in the practice of preoperative medical evaluation (PME) and limited evidence for its benefit, which raises concerns about overuse. Surgeons have a unique role in this multidisciplinary practice. The objective of this qualitative study was to explore surgeons' practices and their beliefs about PME.

methodsWe conducted of semi-structured interviews with 18 surgeons in Baltimore, Maryland. Surgeons were purposively sampled to maximize diversity in terms of practice type (academic vs. private practice), surgical specialty, gender, and experience level. General topics included surgeons' current PME practices, perceived benefits and harms of PME, the surgical risk assessment, and potential improvements and barriers to change. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using content analysis to identify themes, which are presented as assertions. Transcripts were re-analyzed to identify supporting and opposing instances of each assertion.

resultsA total of 15 themes emerged. There was wide variation in surgeons' described PME practices. Surgeons believed that PME improves surgical outcomes, but not all patients benefit. Surgeons were cognizant of the financial cost of the current system and the potential inconvenience that additional tests and office visits pose to patients. Surgeons believed that PME has minimal to no risk and that a normal PME is reassuring to them and patients. Surgeons were confident in their ability to assess surgical risk, and risk assessment by non-surgeons rarely affected their surgical decision-making. Hospital and anesthesiology requirements were a major driver of surgeons' PME practices. Surgeons did not receive much training on PME but perceived their practices to be similar to their colleagues. Surgeons believed that PME provides malpractice protection, welcomed standardization, and perceived there to be inadequate evidence to significantly change their current practice.

conclusionsViews of surgeons should be considered in future research on and reforms to the PME process.

Indexed as

Medical overusePreoperative careRisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID29090090
PMCPMC5655808

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.