Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29167975›Full record

Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2018

Use of an iPad™ application in preoperative counseling for pelvic reconstructive surgery: a randomized trial.

Casey L Kinman, Kate V Meriwether, Cayse M Powell, Deslyn T G Hobson, Jeremy T Gaskins, Sean L Francis

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Interventions to Improve Patient Comprehension in Informed Consent for Medical and Surgical Procedures: An Updated Systematic Review.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2020
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Pelvic organ prolapse and sexual function.Nature reviews. Urology · 2020
    Review
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

6 authors.

Casey L Kinman1st floor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Louisville, 550 S. Jackson St, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA. caseyk4408@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2632-1158
Kate V Meriwether1st floor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Louisville, 550 S. Jackson St, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA.
Cayse M Powell1st floor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Louisville, 550 S. Jackson St, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA.
Deslyn T G Hobson1st floor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Louisville, 550 S. Jackson St, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA.
Jeremy T GaskinsDepartment of Bioinformatics & Biostatistics, School of Public Health and Information Sciences, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.
Sean L Francis1st floor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Louisville, 550 S. Jackson St, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisThe goal of this study was to evaluate whether the addition of an iPad™ application to the informed consent process for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery improves patient understanding and retention of information compared with standard verbal counseling (SVC) alone.

methodsPatients scheduled for POP surgery were randomized to SVC alone or SVC augmented with an iPad™ application. Prior to counseling, immediately following counseling, and 6 weeks after surgery, patients completed a written quiz testing their understanding of POP and surgical repair (worst score 0; best score 20). Primary outcome was score change from pre- to immediately postcounseling. Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction and score change from postcounseling to 6 weeks after surgery. Twenty-six patients per group were needed to detect a 2.8-point difference in score change between groups (80% power; α = 0.05).

resultsSixty patients were randomized, and 57 patients (29 SVC; 28 iPad) were included in the final analysis. There was no significant difference in score change between groups immediately postcounseling. Six weeks after surgery, patients in the iPad group had more deterioration of score (iPad -4.0 ± 2.8 vs. SVC -0.6 ± 2.3 points; p = 0.02). Both groups reported similar satisfaction with counseling.

conclusionsThe addition of a POP-based iPad™ application to the informed consent process for POP surgery did not improve patient comprehension immediately postcounseling and resulted in poorer retention of information 6 weeks after surgery compared with SVC alone.

Indexed as

CounselingPatient SatisfactionAdultAgedFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicPelvic Organ ProlapsePlastic Surgery ProceduresPreoperative CareTreatment OutcomeInformed consentiPadPelvic organ prolapsePelvic reconstructive surgery

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.